The Trump administration's decision to dismantle the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has sparked intense debate in the international community. While the government argues that this measure is part of a strategy to optimize the use of funds and align foreign aid with national interests, critics warn that it could affect millions of people who rely on water and sanitation (WASH) programs.
USAID's inefficiency and structure: reasons behind the decision
Since its founding in 1961, USAID has been a cornerstone of global humanitarian assistance, funding programs in water, sanitation, health, and economic development in more than 120 countries. However, conservative sectors have questioned its structure, highlighting the high number of contractors and arguing that its work is not always aligned with national interests. According to an article in The New York Times by Noah Weiland and Stephanie Nolen, the Trump administration considers USAID a costly intermediary that fails to deliver tangible results in international development.
President Trump, along with Elon Musk, head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, argues that USAID has represented an unnecessary federal expenditure. They claim that its elimination will not generate significant savings but will allow for a restructuring aligned with the "America First" policy.
Concerns about global water access and security
Water and security experts have expressed concern over the reduction of investments in WASH programs previously funded by USAID. Circle of Blue, in an article by Brett Walton, cites John Oldfield, a global water policy consultant, who warns that this reduction could lead to instability in vulnerable regions and create opportunities for influence by other global actors such as China and Russia.
President Trump, along with Elon Musk, argues that USAID has represented an unnecessary federal expenditure
The U.S. National Threat Assessment Report also highlights that water scarcity, exacerbated by climate change, could increase conflicts in regions like the Middle East, Central America, and the Sahel, fueling forced migration and regional instability. This contrasts with President Trump’s perspective, as outlined in his January 20 executive order, stating that foreign aid “does not align with American interests and, in many cases, contradicts national values.”
The debate over public spending priorities for water and sanitation
A key point of contention is the allocation of funds to international programs while the U.S. faces significant domestic infrastructure challenges. In 2023, USAID allocated more than $1.2 billion to water and sanitation projects abroad, while cities like Jackson, Mississippi, suffered drinking water crises due to a lack of infrastructure investment.
“The question is simple: why solve water issues abroad while our own citizens lack adequate services?” a senior government official stated.
However, critics argue that investing in water programs abroad also benefits the U.S. in the long run. According to Circle of Blue, USAID’s WASH programs not only provide access to clean water in vulnerable communities but also help prevent future crises and conflicts that could eventually affect global stability and, consequently, U.S. interests.
A new model for water cooperation
Rather than withdrawing from the international scene, the Trump administration proposes restructuring global water cooperation. Instead of dispersing funds across multiple projects, it aims to establish strategic trade agreements and provide technical support to developing nations, encouraging private investment and reducing dependency on U.S. assistance. However, this emphasis on private sector involvement is not new. USAID, as Global Water Coordinator Nancy Eslick noted in an interview with Smart Water Magazine, is committed to partnerships, recognising that no single actor - whether a bilateral donor, a multilateral development bank, the private sector or domestic resources - could alone close the $1 trillion global financing gap needed to achieve global water security.
Critics argue that investing in water programs abroad also benefits the U.S. in the long run
Chris Rich, executive director of the U.S. Water Partnership, stated in Circle of Blue that international cooperation is essential to addressing global water and climate issues. “You can’t simply close borders and expect problems to disappear,” he said.
In a geopolitical landscape where China and Russia have increased their influence by financing major water infrastructure projects, the White House seeks a more pragmatic strategy. “We are not abandoning international cooperation; we are redefining it to be more effective and aligned with our national interests,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
A transformation with global impact
The closure of USAID marks a profound shift in U.S. foreign policy, with significant repercussions for access to water and sanitation worldwide. While some warn of the void this could leave in essential programs, the Trump administration defends the move as a step toward a more efficient and sustainable model of international cooperation.
The debate remains open, but one thing is clear: the restructuring of U.S. foreign aid is already underway, and its effects on global water security will be felt in the coming years.
