The Death of USAID: Food, Politics, and the Shame of the American Voter

While Americans Wait for DoorDash, Children Around the World Wait to Eat, Medics Wait for Supplies, and American Farmers Pay the Price

In a world marred by conflict, hunger, and growing inequality, the United States once stood as a global beacon of hope through its humanitarian efforts, mainly via the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Established in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy, USAID was founded on a simple yet profound belief: American prosperity is deeply tied to global stability, and fighting hunger and poverty abroad strengthens our moral standing and national security. But today, USAID is in crisis—crippled by political cynicism, corporate interests, and the growing indifference of the American voter.

US Park Service

This crisis reached a new low this week when a U.S. federal court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with its controversial cuts to USAID. Critics argue that this decision will gut one of America’s most vital humanitarian institutions.

The Court Ruling That Sealed USAID’s Fate

On February 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols authorized the Trump administration to significantly downsize USAID as part of its broader government overhaul. This ruling allows the administration to place thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave and initiate the recall of most overseas staff within 30 days, effectively paralyzing the agency’s global operations (AP News).

The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by labor unions representing USAID employees. The unions argued that the administration’s sweeping cuts endangered staff—especially those stationed in volatile regions—and violated procedural requirements by bypassing congressional oversight. Despite these concerns, Judge Nichols ruled that the administration had provided adequate assurances regarding staff safety and communications, thus allowing the cuts to proceed.

The Trump administration, led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and fronted by Elon Musk, justified the move by claiming USAID’s programs were financially wasteful and misaligned with the administration’s policy priorities. Critics, however, view this justification as a thin veneer over a deeper ideological agenda aimed at dismantling international cooperation and humanitarian outreach in favor of a more isolationist foreign policy.

When Food Becomes a Weapon

Food aid, once a symbol of American generosity, has become another pawn in the grand geopolitical chess game. American farmers grow the food, U.S. shipping companies transport it, and the aid often comes with political strings attached. This model has frequently led to market disruptions in developing countries, undercutting local farmers and fostering dependence on foreign aid.

Even worse, food aid has often been used as a political weapon. Countries that align with U.S. interests receive generous support, while those that stray from Washington’s narrative face crippling sanctions and aid cuts. In places like Yemen, Gaza, and Afghanistan, the manipulation of food and medical supplies has deepened humanitarian crises—turning aid into a lever of control rather than a tool of relief.

With USAID facing mass layoffs and a forced scale-back of its global operations, the potential for using aid as leverage will only intensify. Meanwhile, millions who depend on life-saving programs for food, healthcare, and disaster relief are left in limbo

Maria Contreras illustration for Foreign Policy

How Weaponizing Food Helps Trump Win Votes

The dinner table unites and divides, especially the question of what we eat and how we eat it. It is therefore not surprising that politicians frequently use food as a wedge issue to push their ideological agendas and define who belongs in a group and who doesn’t.

The recent political firestorm ignited by former U.S. President Donald Trump’s claim during a presidential debate that “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs. The people that came in. They’re eating the cats,” has upended life in the small Ohio town—especially for its Haitian migrant population. The newly arrived refugees have been accused of eating their neighbors’ pets, leading to bomb threats to local schools and the suspension of in-person classes at nearby universities.

The American Voter’s Complicity

However, USAID’s decline isn’t solely the result of bureaucratic mismanagement or political corruption. The true shame lies with the American voter.

For decades, foreign aid has been demonized in American political discourse. Misconceptions abound—many Americans believe that a massive chunk of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid when, in reality, it accounts for less than 1% of total government spending. Yet, politicians have weaponized this ignorance, stoking nationalist sentiments and painting foreign aid as a wasteful handout to ungrateful nations.

Voters, in turn, have allowed this narrative to thrive. In an age of increasing isolationism and “America First” rhetoric, there is little public appetite for complex discussions about global development or the long-term benefits of humanitarian aid. Foreign policy has become a distant, abstract issue—overshadowed by domestic concerns and polarized culture wars.

The result? Programs that once saved millions now languish in bureaucratic decay, and America’s global reputation as a force for good continues to erode.

OMG NEWS

Kansas Farmers Face Economic Uncertainty Amid USAID Suspension

USAID has been a major buyer of U.S. agricultural products, purchasing approximately $2 billion worth of commodities in 2024 alone. Crops such as wheat, lentils, peas, and rice have been crucial to the agency’s international food aid programs, providing a stable market for American farmers.

The Politics of Hunger

Food is not just sustenance—it’s power. The politics of hunger are deeply intertwined with questions of control, capitalism, and colonial legacies. USAID, at its best, sought to untangle these dynamics, but at its worst, it perpetuated them.

The current food crises in regions like the Horn of Africa, Haiti, and Gaza are not simply the result of natural disasters or bad luck—they are the outcomes of deliberate political decisions. Trade policies, debt traps, sanctions, and military conflicts—often backed by American interests—have destabilized food systems and pushed millions into starvation.

And yet, when images of starving children surface on the evening news, American voters express fleeting outrage before turning their attention back to domestic debates. It’s easier to feel powerless than to confront complicity.

Can USAID Be Resurrected?

The question is not whether USAID can be saved—but whether Americans care enough to save it. Resurrecting the agency requires more than budget increases or bureaucratic reforms; it demands a fundamental shift in how American voters perceive global responsibility.

It requires voters to see food not as a weapon but as a human right. It calls for recognizing that the health and stability of other nations are deeply connected to American prosperity and security. And it necessitates an honest reckoning with how American foreign policy has often exacerbated the crises it claims to solve.

The Shame—and Hope—of the American Voter

The death of USAID is not just a bureaucratic failure; it’s a moral one. It reflects an electorate that has grown numb to suffering beyond its borders, too distracted by partisan squabbles to hold its leaders accountable for the damage done in its name.

Yet, there is hope. Across the country, new generations of activists, policymakers, and voters are calling for a foreign policy rooted in justice rather than power and sustainability rather than short-term profit. The question is whether this movement can grow large enough—and loud enough—to demand change before more lives are lost.

The world is hungry. The tools to help exist. What’s missing is the will.

And that is the shame of the American voter.