Bush and Obama Unite to Criticize the Trump Administration’s Closing of USAID
In a rare and historic moment of bipartisan condemnation, two of the most influential American political figures of the 21st century—former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush—joined forces to sharply criticize President Donald Trump’s decision to shut down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The closure marks the end of a six-decade institution that has shaped global humanitarian action, development aid, and health initiatives around the world. What makes this moment notable is not just the criticism itself, but the fact that these leaders—who represent different political parties and eras—came together to voice their concern about the future of American soft power and its humanitarian legacy. (The Daily Guardian)
Origins and Mission of USAID: A Bipartisan Legacy
To understand the significance of this controversy, it’s important to appreciate what USAID meant historically. Founded in 1961 under President John F. Kennedy, the agency was designed to centralize U.S. foreign assistance, delivering developmental and humanitarian aid globally. Throughout the Cold War, this mission served both ideological and strategic purposes—supporting economic development in poor nations while countering Soviet influence. Over the decades, USAID expanded to include agriculture, education, economic growth, democracy promotion, and essential health initiatives like HIV/AIDS treatment and pandemic responses. (Wikipedia)
USAID’s programs have been credited with tremendous achievements: from advancing agricultural productivity that helped reduce starvation to launching public health campaigns that saved millions of lives. A study published in The Lancet found that USAID-funded efforts prevented more than 91 million deaths over the last two decades alone—an astonishing figure that underscores how deeply integrated the agency became in global health and development systems. (trtworld.com)
Even its most controversial programs earned support across the aisle. For example, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)—launched under the Bush administration—provided HIV/AIDS treatment to millions globally and is regarded as one of the most effective foreign aid programs in history. (Wikipedia)
In spite of valuable accomplishments, USAID’s long history has also attracted criticism from some sectors that viewed it as inefficient or outdated. These concerns resurfaced and intensified under the leadership of President Trump, who recast many traditional foreign aid structures as mismanaged or excessively liberal. (The Daily Guardian)
Trump’s Decision to Close USAID
The Trump administration’s move to dismantle USAID and fold its functions into the State Department did not happen overnight. In early 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio formally announced that 83 % of USAID programs were to be canceled and its independent structure dissolved. Foreign aid, up until then managed through USAID’s global network, was to be overseen by a new initiative internally described as “America First.” (Wikipedia)
Supporters of the closure argued that USAID had grown too large, was poorly monitored, and represented an outdated model of foreign aid. They also asserted that the State Department could provide better oversight and alignment with U.S. national security goals.
What followed was swift and controversial: tens of thousands of USAID employees were laid off; contracts were canceled; and offices around the world were effectively shut down. Many development and humanitarian programs were paused or ended suddenly, while staff received termination notices via mass emails. (The Guardian)
To critics, including foreign governments, global NGOs, and bipartisan policymakers, these actions weakened international cooperation and abandoned vulnerable populations who relied on U.S. aid for survival.
A Rare Bipartisan Rebuke
It is against this backdrop that the video message from Obama and Bush becomes so historic. On what would be USAID’s final day as an independent agency, both former presidents appeared via a privately livestreamed videoconference to speak directly to remaining employees. The event was emotional, remorseful, and filled with genuine respect for decades of service by USAID staffers. (The Daily Guardian)
Obama’s remarks were unequivocal. He called the dismantling of USAID “a colossal mistake” and “a travesty,” emphasizing that the agency’s humanitarian work was among the most important efforts made by the United States anywhere in the world. To him, the decision to shutter USAID was not simply a policy debate, but a retreat from decades of moral leadership and international cooperation. (The Daily Guardian)
“Gutting USAID is a tragedy,” Obama said, “Because it’s some of the most important work happening anywhere in the world.” He highlighted how USAID’s programs had saved millions of lives and fostered economic growth that eventually made recipient countries trading partners, thereby aligning humanitarian impact with broader U.S. interests. (The Daily Guardian)
Bush, for his part, broke from the typical reticence former Republican presidents show when critiquing their party’s successor. He directly referenced his own PEPFAR legacy, reminding staff of the transformative impact of global AIDS treatment programs. He asked rhetorically whether it was truly in the national interest for millions of people to die from preventable diseases—a question that underscored his belief in the enduring value of foreign aid. (trtworld.com)
Their statements were not just political critiques but emotional testimonies, honoring the work of thousands of USAID staff who found meaning and purpose in serving overseas communities.
Broader Reactions and Global Implications
The bipartisan criticism did not stop with Obama and Bush. Legendary musician and humanitarian advocate Bono also joined the virtual farewell, moving many to tears with a poem that celebrated USAID workers as “secret agents of international development” and lamented that millions of children might now suffer from hunger or disease without the programs they helped sustain. (NME)
International leaders and analysts echoed the concern. Former Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, and former U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield spoke to staffers, emphasizing how deeply embedded USAID was in global humanitarian systems. (trtworld.com)
Experts warned that the loss of USAID—not just in name but in function—could have catastrophic effects. The Lancet study mentioned earlier projected that the deep funding cuts and closure could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including more than 4.5 million children under the age of five. These increases would stem from disruptions in health, nutrition, sanitation, and emergency response programs that USAID traditionally supported. (trtworld.com)
It isn’t only health outcomes at stake. With USAID’s dissolution, many development projects—ranging from economic growth initiatives to democratic institution building—face uncertainty. The global governance framework for responding to pandemics, famine, and refugee crises is now less cohesive without the key coordinating role that USAID played for decades.
Political Fallout at Home
In the United States, the closure has sparked intense political debate. Supporters of the Trump administration’s actions argue that reforming foreign aid structures and reducing bureaucratic overhead is necessary. They reiterate that the State Department “America First” strategy aims to tie foreign assistance more directly to national interests. (Wikipedia)
Opponents counter that ditching USAID jeopardizes U.S. leadership in humanitarian response and undermines long-standing global partnerships. Congress has seen pushback from both parties, with lawmakers warning that the abrupt nature of the closure bypassed careful legislative oversight and risked diplomatic relations. (The Daily Guardian)
Some legal challenges have emerged, and humanitarian organizations are urging policymakers to reconsider or replace the agency with a structure that maintains independent aid expertise.
Legacy and What Comes Next
The closure of USAID marks a dramatic shift in how the United States engages with the world. For decades, the agency stood as a symbol of American commitment to global development, aligning strategic interests with humanitarian goals. Its closure raises crucial questions about America’s future role on the world stage.
Will foreign aid return to a central position in U.S. foreign policy? Or will more assistance be tied strictly to narrow national priorities? Critics fear the latter, arguing that moral leadership and global goodwill cannot be measured solely in strategic returns.
What remains clear is that the bipartisan criticism from Obama and Bush demonstrated a rare unity in defense of humanitarian principles. Their voices highlighted that beyond politics, there exists a broad belief in the importance of international partnership, empathy, and long-term global stability—values that USAID sought to embody for sixty years. (The Daily Guardian)
Conclusion: A Defining Moment for U.S. Foreign Policy
The decision to close USAID and the ensuing criticism from two former presidents—one Democratic, one Republican—has ignited a national and international discussion about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. This episode serves as a reminder of the complexities of balancing domestic priorities with global responsibilities. Whether the United States will restore a standalone agency like USAID or continue its transformation under new structures remains to be seen. Regardless, the voices of Obama, Bush, Bono, and global leaders underscored that humanitarian aid is not a partisan issue but a human one—an issue that transcends politics and touches the lives of millions around the globe. (The Daily Guardian)
If you’d like, I can also help edit this for a specific audience (e.g., a particular country, region, or political leaning).
0 comments:
Enregistrer un commentaire