Geopolitical Report ISSN 2785-2598 Volume 51 Issue 5
SpecialEurasia OSINT Unit
Executive Summary
Trump Administration’s decision to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) significantly affects the U.S. foreign policy, with immediate consequences for the Middle East and the post-Soviet space where local countries have relied on U.S. aid for stability and development.
Because of the shutdown, USAID has halted all operations, placing personnel on administrative leave and cancelling vital humanitarian programs. Former officials and international policy experts strongly criticize this move, arguing the agency has been vital in furthering U.S. interests by aiding vulnerable populations.
Undermining USAID operations will diminish U.S. power, primarily in the Middle East and the post-Soviet states, areas where the agency has been central to economic growth, improved governance, and disaster relief. The absence of USAID leaves a power vacuum that geopolitical competitors such as China and Russia may seek to exploit.
USAID and Trump Administration:
Background Information
Established in 1961 under the Kennedy administration, USAID has been a pillar of U.S. soft power, working in over 60 countries to provide humanitarian assistance, economic support, and governance reform. The agency’s work in unstable countries often supports wider Washington’s foreign policy goals, focusing on stabilising areas prone to conflict, insurgency, or adversarial influence.
The Trump Administration, led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has justified the shutdown by arguing that USAID has deviated from U.S. national interests and requires restructuring. Although the administration claims this decision refocuses foreign aid on U.S. interests, not its elimination, critics argue that abolishing the agency poses substantial geopolitical threats.
Samantha Power and Andrew Natsios, among other former USAID officials, worry that the agency’s absence will harm Washington’s reputation, weaken its diplomatic influence, and create a serious humanitarian crisis.
This decision also creates legal and political issues because Congress, which controls USAID’s budget, did not order the shutdown. Elon Musk’s participation in these decisions has only deepened the controversy, raising concerns about an unelected person’s undue influence on U.S. foreign policy without congressional approval.
Geopolitical Assessment
The closure of USAID will have immediate and far-reaching consequences, particularly in the Middle East and post-Soviet states. These areas have received substantial U.S. aid, focusing on economic problems, governance, and humanitarian emergencies. The absence of USAID leaves these areas at greater risk of foreign influence, weak governance, and security issues.
In the Middle East, USAID has played a crucial role in supporting economic development, infrastructure projects, and humanitarian relief. Operating in countries including Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, and the Palestinian territories, the agency has provided aid that has strengthened weak economies and enhanced public services. Recent achievements, including efforts to enhance literacy rates, improve water supply efficiency, and support local agriculture, have strengthened social resilience in the region.
The shutdown is particularly concerning in Gaza, where USAID has been a key provider of emergency food aid, medical supplies, and infrastructure assistance. The already dire humanitarian situation in Gaza could worsen significantly without USAID, potentially leading to more instability. A halt in aid could jeopardise the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, as economic hardship and worsening living conditions might reignite conflict.
Aside from the urgent humanitarian needs, the lack of USAID involvement will undermine U.S. diplomatic leverage in the area. The agency has been crucial in wielding Washington’s soft power, fostering relationships with local governments and civil society.
China and Russia could exploit the suspension of USAID operations by forging economic and political alliances. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative has already expanded its presence in the Middle East, funding infrastructure projects and strengthening economic ties with regional governments. Moscow, meanwhile, has leveraged its military and diplomatic influence to deepen relationships with key states such as Syria and Iran.
In the post-Soviet space, the consequences of USAID’s closure are similarly significant. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the agency has played a leading role in promoting democratic reforms, economic development, and governance modernisation across former Soviet republics. USAID’s support has helped Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova build stronger, independent institutions and fight corruption. In Russia, USAID’s work, which focused on civil society and economic diversification, ended with its expulsion in 2012.
If USAID withdraws from the region, the Kremlin’s influence could grow, especially in countries that have depended on U.S. aid to resist Russian pressure. The post-Soviet area, historically seen by Moscow as its blizhnee zarubezhe (near abroad) and lebensraum (vital space), risks falling under Russian sway without continued U.S. assistance.
Conclusion
USAID shutdown might undermine Washington’s credibility among allies and partners, particularly those that have cooperated with the agency on joint development projects. European governments and multilateral organisations that have worked alongside USAID in global humanitarian efforts may view the move as a sign of U.S. disengagement from international development, potentially leading to shifts in alliance structures and aid coordination mechanisms.
Without USAID-funded health and food security programs, vulnerable regions face a greater risk of instability. In the Middle East, food shortages and economic distress have historically contributed to social unrest, insurgencies, and migration crises. Similarly, in the post-Soviet space, weakened governance structures could lead to political instability, with implications for European and NATO security interests.
The geopolitical vacuum created by USAID’s closure also provides an opportunity for Washington’s opponents to expand their influence. China, with its extensive investment initiatives, and Russia, with its strategic engagement in conflict zones, are well-positioned to take advantage of the U.S. withdrawal from development assistance
Contact us at info@specialeurasia.com and request our monitoring reports and consulting products to assess the geopolitical impact of Trump Administration’s foreign policy in Eurasia.
