Truman, Trump, and Honey: Why shutting down USAID could be the prelude to America’s decline and why Trump is worse than corruption

Ukraine is the main victim

The White House's decision to freeze foreign aid and shut down USAID, the agency primarily responsible for distributing this aid, has jeopardised the work of numerous humanitarian programmes and civic initiatives around the world. Until recently, the US government accounted for more than 40% of all global humanitarian aid, according to the United Nations. Of this, approximately half was distributed through USAID. From 2018 to 2023, US foreign aid commitments averaged $59.6 billion annually, with USAID handling $31.96 billion (54%).

n 2023, the US spent $71.9 billion on foreign aid, allocated as follows: 27% for economic development programmes, 21.7% for humanitarian assistance, 22.3% for healthcare (including 15% for HIV/AIDS programmes), 14.2% for peace and security, 3.6% for administrative expenses, 3.2% for democracy and human rights initiatives, 2% for education and social programmes, and 1.9% for environmental projects, according to the Pew Research Center.In total, the US supported programmes and projects in 177 countries across 29 regions in the 2023 fiscal year.

Among the most critically affected initiatives is PEPFAR, the US government’s largest global health programme targeting HIV/AIDS, according to Turkey's Anadolu Agency. Nearly one-fifth of PEPFAR’s $2.3 billion budget is now at risk, despite its record of saving millions of lives in sub-Saharan Africa. The aid freeze will also worsen the Ebola outbreak in Uganda, leave over 41,000 displaced persons in Colombia without support, and cut off medical aid for 1.7 million people in Pakistan, including 1.2 million Afghan refugees. The Roman Catholic Church's World Charities, operating in over 200 countries, has warned that shutting down USAID would have 'catastrophic' consequences for developing nations, while the 'ruthless and chaotic execution of this heartless decision threatens the lives and dignity of millions.'

However, Ukraine has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid over the past three years amid Russia’s full-scale invasion. In 2022–2023, Ukraine received 22–23% of total US foreign assistance – $16.5 billion annually in actual expenditures. In 2022, about half of this funding was channelled through USAID, but by 2023, that share had risen to 95%. In 2022, aid was primarily allocated to economic support ($8.6 billion) and security ($6.9 billion, likely covering urgent defense needs), with $360 million for humanitarian aid and $140 million for democracy, human rights, and governance. By 2023, economic support had increased to $14.6 billion, humanitarian aid to $1.1 billion, and democracy and governance funding to about $210 million. To put this into perspective, Ukraine’s 2023 budget revenues were $67.6 billion, with a deficit of $33.4 billion – US aid covered nearly half of that shortfall.

According to the Kyiv Independent, USAID’s efforts since Russia’s invasion have played a crucial role in mitigating the war’s devastating consequences, providing electricity to residents and shelter for displaced persons. While the aid freeze and USAID’s closure will not affect Ukraine’s military funding, they will hinder reconstruction and maintenance of destroyed infrastructure (including power generation and railway modernisation), agricultural support, countering Russian disinformation, and human rights protection. Verkhovna Rada deputy Inna Sovsun noted that last September the US allocated $325 million to support Ukraine’s energy sector, which has been subjected to relentless Russian bombardment.

In total, the US is a partner in more than 100 Ukrainian projects, spanning investment, exports, media support, veteran assistance, youth programmes, and academic initiatives. Nearly 90% of regional Ukrainian media outlets rely on US grants, leaving almost half of them at risk of closure, the Kyiv Independent reports. Additionally, US grant programmes play a crucial role in funding teacher salaries in Ukrainian schools. The funding freeze has also halted six US-backed projects under Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office, worth $89 million, Reuters quoted its sources as saying. These projects include investigations into alleged Russian war crimes, as well as anti-corruption initiatives and reform of the Ukrainian prosecutor's office itself.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is urgently heading to Kyiv. The USAID funding freeze poses a looming catastrophe for Ukraine’s government and economy. However, in preparing this decision, it would have been impossible not to notice that nearly a quarter of USAID’s budget was allocated to Ukraine.

Truman and American-style aid

USAID was established in 1961 by an executive order from President John F. Kennedy as part of a reform of US foreign aid programmes. However, large-scale US foreign assistance programmes had been initiated immediately after World War II. These programmes evolved from wartime initiatives but shifted in purpose and function. In 1946, US foreign aid expenditures amounted to $38.6 billion, doubling to $75.9 billion in 1947 (adjusted for constant dollars), according to US international aid statistics. In his 1949 inaugural address, justified broad aid programmes for impoverished and struggling nations as essential to building lasting peace and countering the spread of communism. This goal was later echoed by Kennedy when he reformed aid programmes in the early 1960s.

Truman was largely responsible for the idea of widely deploying 'soft power.' Between 1947 and 1952, approximately $70 billion per year was allocated through such programmes. One of the most successful initiatives was the Marshall Plan (officially the 'European Recovery Program'), which was preceded by smaller-scale trial initiatives in Greece and Turkey. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Europe received the lion’s share of US foreign aid, laying the institutional foundations for Euro-Atlantic unity for the next seven decades. During the same period, aid flows to Asian countries – such as Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines  – also increased, targeting regions affected by World War II or struggling against communist influence. As a result, the US effectively established a stronghold in the Pacific, combining direct military presence with economic and institutional development in key allied nations.

Over the next 25 years – from the mid-1950s to the late 1970s – US foreign aid declined to about $45 billion annually, with a geographical shift in focus. Support increasingly targeted Asian countries (India, Vietnam, Turkey, Israel) and Latin America, where anti-communist efforts were as critical as in Southeast Asia. In the 1980s and 1990s, foreign aid levels dropped further to approximately $30 billion per year, with a focus on Turkey, Egypt, Israel (as the US sought to establish influence in the Middle East), Central America, and post-Franco Spain. In the 1990s, a significant portion of aid was directed to post-socialist Eastern European countries, including Russia. By 1994, Russia was the third-largest recipient of US aid, after Israel and Egypt, although its aid allocation sharply declined in subsequent years. Surprisingly, Russia received substantial US aid in the 2000s – about $10 billion over a decade.

Total US foreign aid expenditures began rising again after the September 11 attacks, particularly from 2003 onward. The primary recipients were nations seen as key allies in combating radical Islamist movements – Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In 2007, these four countries accounted for 40% of total US foreign aid. From 2008 to 2021, USAID distributed an average of just over $60 billion per year – comparable to the GDP of countries like Serbia, Syria, or Slovenia. In addition to the Middle East, aid expanded to African nations and Indonesia. In 2022 and 2023, total foreign aid spending surged to $74 billion and $72 billion, respectively, primarily due to increased support for Ukraine following Russia’s full-scale invasion.

There are widespread and highly exaggerated perceptions among many Americans about the extent of foreign aid provided by the government. In the 2010s, polls indicated that Americans believed up to 20–25% of the federal budget was allocated to foreign aid, often suggesting it be reduced to 10%. However, according to Pew Research Center’s analysis of US government data, the actual share of foreign aid spending in the federal budget has remained relatively stable over the past 25 years, fluctuating between 0.7% and 1.4%. During the Cold War, the US spent significantly more on foreign aid – accounting for about 4.7% of the federal budget in 1963.

Trump, honey and tar

Over the past decade, criticism of US foreign aid programmes and their effectiveness has intensified. This is partly a consequence of the American failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have received over $200 billion in foreign aid over the past 20+ years. According to an online survey conducted in March 2023, 33% of Americans believed that US foreign aid primarily benefits the developing countries it is intended for, while 37% thought it had both positive and negative effects, and 8% believed it was mostly harmful (17% were unsure). These numbers reflect the substantial criticism of foreign aid in American media.

USAID’s effectiveness in many regions and across various initiatives has been questioned. Moreover, distributing aid in impoverished and developing nations with weak institutions and widespread corruption inevitably leads to significant losses and scandals. However, corruption is, in many ways, an integral part of US geopolitical strategy, securing the loyalty of local elites to American programmes and interests. For nearly 80 years – since the late 1940s – this tool of 'soft power' has remained central to America’s global influence, alongside its economic and military strength. It has helped counter widespread anti-American sentiment in many developing nations and, in essence, has been one of the pillars of Pax Americana.

For almost eight decades, despite shifting priorities and changing aid structures, US foreign assistance has consistently shaped the map of American political and humanitarian interests. It has remained a geopolitical tool, helping to build and sustain a network of alliances centered around the United States. The failure of this strategy in the Islamic world has indeed signalled a crisis, contributing to a growing skepticism toward USAID within parts of the American establishment.

However, there seems to be no alternative to this strategy, which became a cornerstone of American foreign policy thinking thanks to Harry Truman. Joseph Nye, author of ‘soft power,’ in a commentary for NBC on Trump and Musk's plans to shut down USAID, says: ‘There are three ways to make someone do what you want: direct force, money, and attraction. This is the classic triad – stick, carrot, and honey. But Trump understands nothing about honey.’

deed, upon closer examination, Trump’s attack on USAID is not merely about its inefficiency but rather a fundamental rejection of its ideological foundations, which trace back to Truman. His campaign against foreign aid is rooted in his belief that, beyond raw power and deal-making, everything else is a waste of resources – essentially a scam on the US government and taxpayers. However, this attack appears increasingly questionable and even absurd, given that China has emerged as the world’s leading purveyor of 'honey,' seeking to challenge US influence in its traditional spheres. If the US were to abandon its foreign aid programs, China would readily fill the void in the developing world, leading to a dramatic shift in the global balance of power and spheres of influence – a concern echoed by experts interviewed by various media outlets ( Reuters, Politico and many other media outlets). At the same time, even if the US ultimately retains most of its foreign aid strategy (which is the likely outcome), Trump’s abrupt and chaotic attempt to halt USAID operations mid-budget cycle – destabilising those who rely on its support – may cause more harm than corruption ever did. After all, it is difficult to expect gratitude for the honey being distributed when it comes with a bucket of tar poured over the recipient’s head.