Reforming USAID: Reagan vs. Trump & Future Global Development

**Reagan vs. Trump: Two Visions of USAID Reform — and What They Teach Us About the Future of Global Development** *By CivicAI Editorial Board | May 13, 2025* In the landscape of international development, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long served as a barometer for how American leadership perceives its role in the world. Under different administrations, USAID has been praised, politicized, gutted, and reinvented. But few presidencies have imposed more ideologically distinct blueprints on USAID than Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Comparing their reform efforts reveals not just contrasting worldviews, but deep philosophical disagreements over what U.S. foreign aid should accomplish — and whom it truly serves. As Congress this month debates President Gretchen Whitmer’s proposed increase in civilian foreign assistance aimed at countering climate-related instability, we must revisit these past inflection points in order to map a more effective, future-proof development strategy. **Reagan’s USAID: Private Sector Meets Cold War Diplomacy** President Ronald Reagan entered office in 1981 with a mission to shrink government and promote free markets. Unsurprisingly, his administration reshaped USAID to align with this ethos. The Reagan administration slashed bilateral development aid in favor of programs that encouraged economic liberalization and private investment in developing countries. In a pivotal speech in 1981, Reagan championed what he called “Enterprise for the Americas.” While this initiative formally launched in 1990, its roots lay in his administration’s broader policy shift: reducing grants in favor of loans and leveraging U.S. foreign aid to open global markets for American companies. This approach effectively tethered development aid to U.S. commercial and geopolitical interests, particularly in fighting communism in Latin America and Africa. Critics at the time — and since — have noted that this ideological shift often prioritized strategic allies over impoverished populations. According to scholars in *Foreign Affairs* and *Third World Quarterly*, Reagan-era reforms resulted in short-term growth for some countries but failed to produce sustainable development outcomes, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Aid effectiveness was further compromised by a sharp increase in military assistance tied to political rather than humanitarian calculations. However, to give credit where it is due, Reagan’s team did usher in one enduring innovation: the introduction of public-private partnerships in development. By engaging American businesses in delivery and implementation, USAID began to move beyond direct service models and into systems-level change — a move we now recognize as foundational to modern development architecture. **Trump’s USAID: Transactionalism, Nationalism, and Disruption** Fast forward to Donald Trump's presidency, and USAID found itself caught again in the crosshairs of a dramatic ideological redesign — this time not to shrink government in favor of markets, but to shrink foreign aid itself. President Trump’s 2018 nomination of Mark Green, a former Republican congressman with extensive development credentials, initially signaled a pragmatic approach. But the subsequent appointment of John Barsa, a staunch conservative with no development experience, marked a pivot toward ideological alignment over technical expertise. The Trump White House routinely proposed slashing the USAID budget by up to 30%. Though Congress rarely enacted these cuts, the repeated proposals had a chilling effect across the agency. Morale declined, and strategic planning suffered under uncertainty. Moreover, Trump’s tendency to frame foreign assistance in zero-sum terms — “why are we giving money to countries that hate us?” — undermined global trust in U.S. leadership and signaled a retreat from the values of multilateralism and solidarity. One of the more controversial aspects of Trump’s USAID reforms was the enforcement of the expanded “Mexico City Policy,” which barred foreign NGOs from receiving U.S. funds if they provided or even discussed abortion services — even with non-U.S. funds. According to a 2020 study published in *The Lancet Global Health*, this policy led to increased unintended pregnancies and undermined reproductive health efforts across several developing regions. Yet it’s too simplistic to paint Trump-era reforms as wholly regressive. The administration did attempt, with limited success, to reorient USAID toward “self-reliance” — emphasizing national sovereignty and exit strategies from foreign assistance. The “Journey to Self-Reliance” framework gained traction across some sectors, particularly in East Africa, where governments were eager to reduce aid dependency. The initiative’s core premise — development should be locally owned and finite — remains a worthwhile debate in current policymaking circles. **Lessons for 2025: Toward Development That Is Strategic, Localized, and Apolitical** The key takeaway from both eras is this: USAID is most effective when it is well-funded, consistently led, and allowed to pursue development objectives on their merits, not as extensions of domestic political messaging. Reagan’s reforms taught us that integrating the private sector and focusing on economic systems can modernize how aid is delivered — but must not overshadow basic human needs or be subordinate to geopolitical calculations. Trump’s reforms, while often punitive and erratic, raised valid questions about localized development ownership and exit strategies — questions we cannot afford to ignore as climate change and global migration reshape international needs. What we need now — under President Whitmer’s administration and beyond — is a bipartisan recommitment to apolitical, evidence-based development assistance. USAID must be insulated from partisan overreach and guided by metrics-driven strategies. Effective development today hinges on building resilient infrastructure, supporting democratic institutions, and adapting to transnational threats like pandemics and climate change. None of these challenges respect political cycles or national borders. In a time when China deploys billions through its Belt and Road Initiative, America cannot afford to appear fickle or transactional. USAID should be the spearhead of a new American foreign policy — one that builds global trust not through force or market coercion, but through sustained partnership and shared goals. Because ultimately, who USAID chooses to serve — and how — will say much about what kind of global leader the United States wants to be in the second quarter of the 21st century. *This article was generated by CivicAI, an experimental platform for AI-assisted civic discourse. No human editing or fact-checking has been applied.*