USAID out, USAIHA in: Strategy or afterthought?

The U.S. plans to replace USAID with a new agency, the U.S. Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance (USAIHA), sparking concerns over the abrupt shutdown, massive job losses, and the future of global aid.
Critics argue the transition lacks empathy, strategic communication, and foresight, with fears that the narrow focus of USAIHA may undermine U.S. soft power and global influence.
Analysts urge the agency to be independent, inclusive of crisis assessments like climate change, and responsive to global needs if it is to succeed.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is being replaced by a newly proposed aid agency—the U.S. Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance (USAIHA). This major shift in America’s foreign aid architecture was quietly announced by the U.S. State Department through a memo submitted to Congress at the end of March 2025.

The move has sparked widespread concern, with critics labeling it as abrupt and unceremonious, effectively hammering one of the last nails in the coffin of an institution that, for decades, delivered life-saving aid across the globe.

A sudden end to a lifeline

Analysts have expressed dismay at the manner in which the transition was handled. Alongside the drastic budget cuts, thousands of USAID employees were laid off. This has led many to question the logic behind shutting down one aid agency only to launch another. Was this truly a reform plan in the making, or merely an impulsive political maneuver?

“If anyone should lose their jobs, it’s Trump’s PR team,” a commentator quipped, highlighting the lack of empathy and clarity in how the change was communicated.

The human cost of poor planning

Wayan Vota, an analyst with CareerPivot, condemned the approach taken by the Trump-Musk administration. “Rather than cause a colossal global panic that disrupted and overturned the lives of hundreds of thousands of families, staff, and aid recipients alike, it would have been prudent to simply announce the replacement of USAID—without the abrupt shutdown,” he noted.

Vota criticized the callousness shown, writing: “The USAID staff and aid recipients are not lifeless machine parts that can be discarded without regard to who will be hurt and how many lives will be lost in the process.”

He likened the situation to Tesla recalling a malfunctioning car: “Even then, there’s an apology, an explanation, and a clear plan forward. The USAID shutdown had none of that.”

By the numbers: job losses and aid cuts

The numbers paint a grim picture: 5,341 foreign aid projects will be terminated, while annual aid spending will plummet from $40 billion to just $8.3 billion.

Of the thousands of USAID employees, only 869 remain on active duty. A total of 1,602 are in the process of being laid off, while 3,848 are on administrative leave. Of 300 probationary staff initially fired, 270 have returned to work after taking the matter to court—for now.

USAIHA: A narrower, security-oriented aid agency

The proposed U.S. Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance (USAIHA) will focus primarily on disaster response, global health, and food security. According to policy analysts, all politically oriented programs previously under USAID are to move under the direct control of the State Department.

USAIHA will operate under three main pillars:

International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA)

This arm will oversee responses to disasters, health crises, and food insecurity—especially where such interventions serve U.S. national security or strategic interests.

Development finance corporation (DFC)

This body will focus on generating American jobs and promoting U.S. influence through trade, investment, infrastructure, and technology. Analysts see it as a strategic counter to China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

State department oversight of political programs

Programs promoting democracy, human rights, women’s empowerment, religious freedom, and anti-human trafficking initiatives will now be directly managed by the State Department. “This realignment recognizes these programs as inherently diplomatic,” said Vota.

Ther risks of ideological narrowness

For USAIHA to succeed, Vota argues, it must avoid ideological blinders. “It must work with partners to assess and share the burden of crisis prevention,” he says. The goal of avoiding military interventions by addressing crises early is a noble one—but only if implemented properly.

He warns that politically convenient interventions won’t be enough. “The gaps left by selective engagement will be filled by competitors, and U.S. influence will erode,” Vota cautions.

Climate change: A litmus test for USAIHA

Climate change could be a defining challenge for USAIHA. Vota cites Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s dismissive stance—“The Department of Defense doesn’t do climate change crap”—as a dangerous precedent.

“Managing climate change is about managing risk. You either act or let it happen to you,” he asserts. Excluding climate science and meteorological services from USAIHA’s scope, he warns, would be a grave oversight.

Reform is necessary, but reckless overhaul is dangerous

While most experts agree that the global aid system needs reform and that partners must move toward self-sufficiency, Vota insists such transitions must be meticulously planned. “Quick fixes might work in boardrooms, but in the real world, they cost lives,” he cautions.

Proceed with eyes wide open

“If the proposal for USAIHA survives legal and political scrutiny, it must be built with full awareness of the complex global landscape,” Vota concludes. “If not, the agency will falter, the investment will be wasted, and American interests will suffer.”