Bush, Obama — and singer Bono — fault Trump’s gutting of USAID on agency’s last day

The final day of the Trump administration saw an extraordinary bipartisan condemnation of its substantial reductions to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush uniting alongside celebrated activist and musician Bono to voice their profound concerns. This rare joint statement from two ideologically diverse former commanders-in-chief underscored a deep apprehension across the political spectrum regarding the future of America’s global engagement and its vital foreign aid initiatives. The criticism centered squarely on the perceived gutting of an agency long considered a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian efforts worldwide.

USAID, established in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, has historically served as the principal U.S. government agency responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. Its mandate extends to advancing American economic and national security interests abroad, fostering global stability, and delivering essential humanitarian assistance in crisis-stricken regions. From combating global pandemics and promoting democratic governance to supporting agricultural development and education, USAID’s reach has been instrumental in projecting American values and influence across continents.

Both Barack Obama and George W. Bush, having overseen significant USAID operations during their presidencies, emphasized the agency’s irreplaceable role in their unified rebuke. They argued that weakening such a pivotal agency could gravely diminish America’s influence on the international stage, unraveling decades of strategic diplomatic engagement and jeopardizing numerous development projects that serve both U.S. interests and global well-being. Their joint stance highlighted a bipartisan consensus on the strategic value of foreign aid as a critical tool of soft power.

The involvement of Bono, a long-standing and vocal advocate for global development and poverty alleviation, further amplified the gravity of the message. His participation underscored the widespread concern permeating diverse political and social groups regarding the ramifications of weakening an agency vital for diplomatic engagement and the provision of aid. This collective voice served as a powerful counter-narrative to the Donald Trump administration’s “America First” policy, which often prioritized domestic concerns over international obligations, sometimes at the expense of established foreign policy tools.

The core of the criticism revolved around the potential long-term harm to critical humanitarian endeavors, public health initiatives, and the establishment of democratic institutions in vulnerable nations. These are all areas where USAID has historically provided crucial support, building goodwill, stabilizing regions, and preventing crises that could ultimately impact U.S. national security. Critics contended that the reductions risked creating power vacuums, exacerbating humanitarian crises, and undermining democratic transitions globally.

This unified denunciation from such influential figures highlighted a stark philosophical divergence on the strategic value of foreign aid. As the Donald Trump administration concluded, questions lingered about USAID’s legacy and the potential obstacles its successor or a revamped agency might encounter in re-establishing its former reach and impact. The challenge for future administrations would be to rebuild trust and capacity, ensuring that the United States remains a leading force in global development and humanitarian assistance, capable of addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century.