Once used in a plea to the BYU Parking police to get them to drop a (justly-given) parking ticket (and they did), I now reuse one of my favorite lines from Shakespeare here: “The quality of mercy is not strained; / It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven / Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest; / It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. [1]” While I wish I could include the whole of this stanza from Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, I unfortunately have a word limit and a desire to talk about something more pressing than my parking woes.
The dissolution of USAID, one of the world’s largest aid agencies and the primary source of US foreign assistance, has left a moral stain on US leaders and created a power vacuum that US competitors are all too eager to fill. Maybe the connection to the Shakespeare quote is blurry, so I will do my best to fill that gap: I believe that many once viewed the US as a benevolent and merciful superpower, but that perception has eroded in recent years, particularly as USAID’s work has been curtailed. While I think this has been happening gradually in small ways, I would be remiss not to argue that this decline did not happen by accident, but instead has been engineered, accelerated, and brutally carved into place by the current administration.
In the months since the dissolution of USAID, I’ve had plenty of conversations with people who think differently about this particular issue. Some argue the billions once spent abroad should be kept at home to chip away at our $37 trillion debt. Others say that it seems unfair for the US to constantly have to help support countries that aren’t able to help themselves. Some have argued that the money was mismanaged and the organization was bloated. In contrast, critics such as Senator Mike Lee and others have claimed that USAID funds supported “radical progressive Marxist causes” through programs like gender equity or climate change initiatives, framing these efforts as creating “leftist, socialist, woke countries [2].” While I can see and understand quite a few of these arguments, I would also like to make a few of my own.
Since 1961, the United States has used development aid as a key soft-power instrument. President John F. Kennedy’s creation of USAID centralized foreign assistance under the premise that capitalism and democracy would outshine communism and “win hearts and minds” in developing countries. From vaccine deliveries in South Korea and loans in Colombia, to rural infrastructure projects in countries like India and Pakistan, its humanitarian projects were strategic tools to build alliances and contain Soviet influence [3].
After the Cold War, USAID retained its strategic role by tackling transnational threats. Programs like PEPFAR (a program started by Republican President George W. Bush) saved millions of lives during the HIV/AIDS epidemic [4]. USAID had bipartisan support for decades, as it had consistently demonstrated throughout the years that its initiatives, targeting food security, education, disaster relief, and medical care, were directly in the interest of the United States and its foreign policy. By addressing these issues, USAID helped stabilize post-conflict zones and prevent the resurgence of extremist groups [5]. Additionally, it was reported that military leaders also noted that the agency was essential because it helped avoid wars that the US would otherwise have to intervene in, at a far more costly and deadly cost [6].
While the current administration may view it as unnecessary, a broad bipartisan consensus before 2016 generally held that foreign aid was an essential component of American foreign policy, though different administrations emphasized it in varying ways, whether it be George W. Bush’s focus on PEPFAR or Barack Obama’s emphasis on development as part of counterterrorism strategy [7][8][9]. The entire US foreign aid budget was 1 percent of federal spending, or in other words, we spent $85 billion on foreign aid, whereas we will now pay upwards of $3.3 trillion on our new “big, beautiful bill [10][11].” We traded lives we could have easily saved abroad for debt we now will bleed at home. I’m glad we’re saving money!
The abrupt dissolution of USAID has already triggered spikes in preventable diseases, starvation, and death. As of July 2025 (when I began writing this article), an estimated 365,000 people have died already, with over two-thirds of them being children. An estimated 3,284,400 people could die within this year, and an estimated 14 million people could die by 2030 without American funding for vaccines, food aid, malaria prevention, tuberculosis prevention, and HIV prevention and treatment [12][13]. Every day adds to the total, proving that inaction or reversal of action is not neutral but lethal.
While the US may give more humanitarian assistance than any country, its per capita donations trail several European nations, and even with needed USAID reforms, American assistance still saved an estimated life every ten seconds [14][15]. Active conflict and refugee crises are worsening in places that relied on American aid. In its absence, Russia and China are stepping into the vacuum with aid tied to resource deals and debt leverage, such as China’s Belt and Road initiative in countries like Sri Lanka and Zambia, or Russia’s provision of grain and arms to African states, rather than democratic values, directly undermining US influence [16][17].
Reversing this decision must be the immediate bipartisan priority. Establishing an interim humanitarian and development fund under the State Department would restore life-saving programs and signal continued US engagement. While Congress debates a long-term solution, this stopgap would mitigate the worst outcomes and reassure allies that American leadership remains committed to global stability. Despite increasingly polarized political divides, eight in 10 Americans still believe the United States “should provide medicine and medical supplies, as well as food” to people in developing countries [18].
The final line of the Shakespeare stanza reads as follows: “Though justice be thy plea, consider this, / That, in the course of justice, none of us / Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; / And that same prayer doth teach us all to render / The deeds of mercy.” [1] Shakespeare reminds us that mercy blesses both the giver and the receiver. By dismantling USAID, we have abandoned our claim to compassion and ceded influence to rivals who wield aid without principles.
Reestablishing a strong, transparent development fund is not just charity but a pragmatic assertion of American leadership and our values. If mercy sustains nations as surely as it does souls, it is past time we reclaimed our legacy of generous engagement for the sake of our security and our conscience.
