Killing USAID is Shooting in the Foot

On January 20—while President Trump was sworn in amid the fanfare of Washington, D.C.—some 8,000 miles away in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, officials reversed their previous denials and announced an outbreak of Marburg virus. This hemorrhagic virus, closely related to Ebola and boasting a case fatality rate of up to 88 percent, threatens to draw global attention that Tanzania has long preferred to avoid.

Drawing on hard-won lessons from the West African Ebola crisis of 2014—which took two years and over $2 billion of U.S. funding to rein in—the USAID and CDC were busy charting a course to nip the Marburg outbreak in the bud. Meanwhile, in the Western Hemisphere, U.S. officials were monitoring an outbreak of the extremely rare, Ebola-like Chapare hemorrhagic fever in Bolivia, preparing to mobilize a response. Yet, two weeks later, with no plans having been executed and key USAID leaders on administrative leave amid a sweeping foreign aid shakeup, containment efforts remain stalled.

In a move that defies both U.S. law and long-standing bipartisan support for international aid, President Trump—backed by his newly minted advisor, Elon Musk—has ordered a plan that could unravel the carefully constructed international aid apparatus. In the early hours of February 3, Musk announced that he and the President had decided to “shut down” USAID. Staff were informed that the agency’s headquarters were closed, Secretary of State Marco Rubio was designated its new head, and plans were set in motion to merge USAID with the State Department. Early reports suggest this scheme could entail significant layoffs of personnel charged with managing critical programs.

To put it plainly, this is neither sound policy nor legally tenable under the U.S. Constitution.

Criticism of USAID is not new. Critics from both sides of the political spectrum have noted that while the agency’s model may be outdated—often criticized for operating in a neocolonial framework—its work saves lives. Abruptly dismantling or merging it with the State Department not only undermines its independence but also risks halting essential programs that combat malaria, support clinical trials, and prevent a resurgence of HIV, among other issues.

USAID’s existence is not a product of executive whim. Established by Congress under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961—pioneered by Senator William Fulbright and signed into law by President Kennedy—it was originally placed under the State Department. In 1979, President Carter restructured the aid landscape by creating the United States International Development Cooperation Agency (IDCA), which took USAID’s operational authority. Later, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 abolished the IDCA, cementing USAID’s status as an independent agency under Congress’s authority. The separation of powers is clear: Congress, not the President or unelected advisors like Musk, holds the authority to create or abolish agencies. As the Supreme Court noted in Meyers v. United States (1926), the establishment and jurisdiction of such offices rest squarely with Congress.

Senator Marco Rubio himself was instrumental in enhancing USAID’s transparency and accountability through legislation in 2016. Disrupting this carefully balanced structure with unilateral executive action not only defies the law but also jeopardizes the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian efforts worldwide.

Recent reports underscore the urgency: the Africa CDC has documented nine deaths from the Marburg outbreak in Tanzania’s Kagera region—a transit hub bordering several nations—raising fears of a regional epidemic reminiscent of the 2014 Ebola crisis, which at its peak affected over 13,000 people and required military intervention for containment.

Tanzania, known for its cautious approach to foreign aid, particularly from the United States, has historically shunned direct diplomatic engagement on health crises—a strategy that contrasts with its balanced relations with China and India. USAID, with its dual role as both funder and facilitator of local responses, has played a pivotal role in previous crises, including the recent Marburg response, by providing essential equipment, medicines, and coordination with organizations like UNICEF and the Red Cross.

This is not a trivial matter. Amid 118 reported global health emergencies—from Ebola resurgences in the Congo and Uganda to emerging threats like mpox and bird flu—the dissolution or merger of USAID undermines not only lives saved but also the longstanding bipartisan effort to support U.S. national interests abroad.

In short, while calls for USAID reform are not without merit, any changes must occur within the legal framework established by Congress. Unilateral decisions that disregard this framework weaken the constitutional separation of powers and risk turning sound policy into a haphazard experiment with potentially disastrous global consequences.

Is this move about improving aid effectiveness, or is it a dangerous rehearsal of executive overreach with implications far beyond foreign assistance? Only time will reveal the full impact of these decisions on U.S. interests and global stability.