Trump Scraps Over 80% Of USAID Programs, Citing Misalignment With National Interests

In a bold move that has sent shockwaves through global humanitarian circles, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has axed more than 80% of the programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), following a sweeping six-week review.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealed the drastic decision in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Monday, stating that the 5,200 contracts terminated represented billions of dollars spent on programs that failed to serve, and in some cases even undermined, America’s core national interests.

“These programs did not align with the ‘America First’ foreign policy, and they did not benefit the United States,” Rubio said. “This is a necessary step to refocus our foreign aid efforts where they matter most.”

Under the new strategy, approximately 1,000 programs will remain, but they will now be directly managed under the State Department and in close coordination with Congress, Rubio confirmed.

The decision marks the latest shift in U.S. foreign policy since Trump’s return to office on January 20, when he immediately ordered a 90-day pause on foreign aid to review whether current initiatives aligned with his administration’s priorities. The suspension of USAID’s operations has had far-reaching consequences.

USAID, which plays a critical role in providing life-saving food, medical aid, and humanitarian assistance across the globe, has been thrown into disarray.

The pause led to the suspension of crucial programs, leaving millions of people in vulnerable situations without vital support.

Though waivers were granted for some life-saving aid, humanitarian workers reported that the majority of critical funding remained frozen.

As a result, thousands of USAID staff members were put on leave, and many contractors lost their jobs. Reports indicate that most of those placed on leave are unlikely to be reinstated.

The ripple effects of this drastic overhaul are still unfolding, as global organizations scramble to assess the full impact on critical aid programs.

Critics argue that this move risks worsening humanitarian crises worldwide, while the administration defends it as a necessary realignment of foreign assistance to better serve U.S. national interests.