When President Trump campaigned for a second term in office, he promised to cut what he referred to as government waste, fraud and abuse. He tasked Elon Musk, shortly after his election, with locating the alleged financial mismanagement and use through the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”). Mr. Musk quickly identified the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) as a source of this improper spending; President Trump agreed. A few weeks into his presidency, Trump signed executive orders in an attempt to dismantle USAID, which drew widespread criticism.
USAID was established in 1961 as an independent agency of the United States government, mainly responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. It has implemented a range of programs in areas such as global health, disaster relief, socioeconomic development, environmental protection and education. According to their website, they employ over 10,000 workers and have an annual budget of $40 billion. President Trump’s administration deemed much of their work to be irrelevant to the American taxpayer, perhaps even illegitimate or unethical.
Critics of the action claim that his decision will risk harming people who have used the funds to avoid poverty or sickness. This direct effect seems clear, however, more nuanced consequences remain. For instance, there is fear that ending USAID and its numerous programs abroad will result in a shift in public opinion on the United States. Not only will the people in the affected countries likely be angered by the reduction in aid, but also countries that receive aid are more inclined to act beneficially to the United States. This, of course, means that countries that will no longer receive aid because of President Trump’s actions may no longer be willing to act in the best interests of the United States. Foreign aid is a meaningful soft power tool that should not be ignored as a consideration in the dramatic change in policy.
President Trump, on the other hand, is of the belief that the United States should withhold aid to nations that do not support their global objectives. It is not exactly clear what constitutes sufficient support for the global objectives of the United States, nonetheless it is important to understand that non-commital to aid may not ultimately work in favour of President Trump. That is to say if President Trump decides to withhold aid from a country that is currently not operating in ways that benefit the United States, then they are unlikely to change their actions without an inflow of aid.
Juan Linz’s framework for democratic erosion provides a deeper understanding of the implications of Trump’s actions. Linz highlights legitimacy and efficacy as the two key variables to governmental stability. Therefore, President Trump’s use of executive orders to dissolve an institution that was produced through congressional authority poses a threat to democratic legitimacy. His unilateral actions limit the oversight that is necessary for a legitimate democratic government. However, he has faced many legal challenges against his actions, which could serve as a necessary check to preserve democratic norms. It still remains to be seen whether these legal cases will be successful, and if the President’s actions remain unchallenged, this could set the tone for a reduction in the normal checks and balances that are necessary in an efficient democracy.
Linz also suggests that when crises are framed as a justification for dissolving legitimate and necessary institutions, democratic breakdown is more likely. Therefore, if President Trump’s actions either go unchecked, or are disregarded, crucial institutions will be dismantled and this could accelerate a shift towards undemocratic governance.
Stealth authoritarianism is a concept put forward by Ozan Varol, which can help to uncover the possible implications of Trump’s strategies. Stealth authoritarianism is defined as the use of legal mechanisms to weaken democratic institutions. This strategy can allow a leader to dismantle institutions through loopholes to increase their power. This relates to USAID as Trump is not abolishing the institution outright, but rather cutting staff and limiting funding. This method decreases the ability of others to challenge his authority, as he, similar to a stealth authoritarian would, is technically operating within the realms of his power. Therefore, it may be difficult for the legislature and judiciary to oppose his actions, further contributing to the democratic backsliding that we may begin to witness with this administration.
Overall, this administration’s ploy to dismantle USAID appears as more than merely an action to increase governmental efficiency. It is a test of democratic resilience that may set the tone for the next four years. Using Linz’s theory, Trump’s executive orders can be seen as a threat to institutional legitimacy. Varol’s ideas also increase concern around the ability of this administration to weaken democratic institutions, without explicitly violating the law. There are still many questions that remain unanswered regarding the ability of the judiciary and legislative branches to counteract democratic erosion. However, there is definitely concern, further than just the dismantling of USAID and its implications, that executive power will be unchecked and could erode legitimate, democratic institutions.
India, thank you for this insightful article. I particularly appreciated your comments regarding soft power; I believe much of the current academic discourse surrounding democratic erosion focuses less on this subtle yet equally influential aspect of international relations. I did not make the connection between foreign aid and soft power before reading this article, so thank you for presenting the phenomenon in such a nuanced fashion.
I did have a question regarding executive power. You discuss Juan Linz’s framework and Ozan Varol’s concept of stealth authoritarianism to analyze the potential democratic erosion caused by Trump’s actions. Given that executive overreach is often contested through the judiciary, what specific legal or constitutional mechanisms do you believe are most likely to effectively check executive power in this case? Do you see historical precedents where similar executive actions were successfully challenged or upheld?
Dear India, Thank you for your extremely insightful article about Trump’s attack on USAID. Your analysis of the implications of dismantling USAID beyond just budget concerns is astonishing. It is truly worrying how these acts can go unchecked under the Trump administration due to democratic erosion. USAID already only receives roughly 1% of government spending, despite all the claims about excessive U.S. foreign aid spending. I particularly appreciated your comments on the discussion of Ozan Varol’s concept of stealth authoritarianism. This helps demonstrate how legally justified executive actions can completely undermine democratic institutions. In turn, this will have long-term political consequences for the United States, also reducing who would be willing to work with us in the future. In the article, you mentioned how Trump’s administration deemed much of USAID’s work to be irrelevant to the American taxperys. Could you expand on how his administration has determined which countries were deemed unworthy of aid?
Thank you for this careful analysis of the Trump administration’s attack on USAID, India. I appreciate you bringing attention to the possible unknown consequences of cutting critical, life-saving aid abroad. Furthermore, I particularly appreciate your usage of Juan Linz’s framework to analyze how the gutting of USAID could potentially serve as a turning point in the American democracy, in which a lack of strong institutions to check and balance and a lack of loyal actors could lead to a democratic breakdown. As you note, the legal pushback against President Trump’s actions are necessary to preserve and uphold democratic norms. I am happy to share that the Supreme Court seems to be appropriately checking the Trump administration in regards to unpaid USAID contracts, which to me, signals loyal actors within the Supreme Court that are willing to execute their checking power over the executive branch.
In regards to your earlier point on aid as a tool of soft power, I recently came across a Zambian economist, Dambisa Moyo, who argues that aid is not effective as it feeds corruption, can harm local markets, can create an economic dependence by the receiving country, and ultimately, fails to create long lasting reform. Given your discussion on USAID and its effects on the receiving population, as well as the standing of the United States in a global stage, I wonder your reaction to Moyo’s theory on aid. Considering Moyo’s theory, do you think that there might be any positive changes that might be arise on a global stage from the cutting of USAID? Any positive changes domestically?