Some decisions shake the established order, like a clap of thunder in a sky that was thought to be stable. The brutal suspension of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) by the Trump administration is one of them. This decision is a political move with very real repercussions that leaves behind millions of people in the so-called third world, dependent on health, education and humanitarian aid programs funded by the United States. Beyond legitimate indignation, this announcement has appeared to be an electroshock for some of its beneficiaries, particularly on the African continent. So, why does the American government's decision to shut down its foreign aid agency spark so much debate? Shall we believe that behind the financing and projects, an entire sector of African development relies on external aid? Well, the case, being so, is another proof of how so many things are wrong with our development model.
It is well-known that Africa has been running on life support for decades. International aid, whether from the European Union, the U.S., or financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, structures the public policies of most of its countries. But since we are talking about USAID, let’s stick to it. And to be honest, its role in many countries has never been unanimous. It has been countless times criticized for its paternalistic approach, while others perceived it as a tool of the American soft power through its occasionally opaque financing or choice of projects guided by geopolitical interests and a dependence that has taken hold in many African nations.
Nonetheless, the least can be said that the agency played an important role as key sectors like health, infrastructure and education heavily relied on this funding. It also offers job opportunities both to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and young graduates, and today, the end closure of this agency means, in concrete terms, the loss of millions of people’s essential resources. This is a paradox for a continent rich in natural resources coveted by foreign powers. How can we account for the fragile health systems, underfunded universities and abandoned roads resulting from insufficient public investment in such rich soil? The answer is simple: U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement has been perceived as a real-world test because we have ceded control of our own development to external donors. Millions of lives being at risk as the immediate result of USAID being shut down is the sign of a deep structural flaw in many African nations.
Beyond the immediate loss, this closure must push us to deeper reflection. Development aid has often been seen as a miracle solution. USAID has often been sold to us as a model of cooperation, a disinterested development tool aimed at improving the living conditions of African populations. Yet, when one looks closely, it is, above all, an instrument of American hegemony. It has sometimes maintained failing governance systems where leaders make use of funds allocated to projects as a political tool, distributing resources to their supporters instead of financing projects likely to have immediate impacts on populations. When we know that the golden principle in foreign policy is national interest, it is needless to say that USAID, like many international donors, never acted selflessly. Imposed reforms, contracts awarded to Western companies, and diplomatic influences have always been the conditions under which it operated. The dependency on this aid has prevented many African countries from building endogenous development based on their own strengths.
While this sudden halt to American aid is shocking, it should also be seen as an opportunity to reassess our priorities. Far from being a burden, it may represent a long-awaited opportunity to build more autonomous and resilient development models. For decades, our economies have relied on external financing, notably since the IMF and World Bank’s structural adjustment programs. The outcome? Key sectors like health, education and infrastructure rely to a great extent on official development assistance. Yet, it is a fact that a country cannot build its future on a crutch. A sovereign state cannot wait for Washington, Brussels, or Paris to decide whether it should have hospitals, roads, or schools. This is absurd. This dependency makes most African states’ economies vulnerable to international political fluctuations. Today, it is Trump who is cutting off funding. Tomorrow, another leader may decide that Africa is no longer a priority. How do we deal with such situations?
The end of USAID will create difficulties: jobs will disappear, and projects will be abandoned. But it is also an opportunity to ask ourselves: do we want to continue to depend on the charity of the great powers or do we finally want to write our own destiny? And the truth is that Africa can no longer afford to be on international aid. Africa can no longer afford to wait for Washington or Pekin to decide who will eat tomorrow, who will receive antiretroviral treatment or who can go to school. Perhaps it is again time for our leaders to realize that development will not come from external aid but from courageous decisions, a long-term vision, and true development plans for their countries. This episode reminds us of the fact that no country builds its sovereignty by relying on the volatile generosity of a foreign power. Therefore, it is time to change the paradigm, and two paths are open to us: the first is temporary indignation followed by a return to the status quo, where we will beg another partner to fill the void left by the Americans. The second, more demanding but much more promising, is to use this moment as a turning point toward real sovereignty by thriving for an economy of creation, where African skills and expertise are valued in projects designed by and for Africans, and this, not by closing the door to collaborations, but by ensuring that they are done on an equal footing.
