I. Introduction

This section introduces the historical background of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its significant role in the U.S. global strategy. It elaborates on the Trump 2.0 administration’s decision to shut down the agency and its initial impacts, pointing out that the closure signals a major adjustment in U.S. domestic and foreign policies. The significance of the shutdown is analyzed from the perspectives of party politics, geopolitical strategy, and global governance. Meanwhile, it highlights the current state and limitations of academic research on the impacts of the agency’s closure, clarifying the research direction and significance of this paper.

II. Analysis of the Motivations Behind the Shutdown of USAID

The shutdown of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was the result of a decision by the Trump 2.0 administration under the combined influence of multiple factors. From the perspective of domestic politics, this decision is closely tied to the governing agenda of the Trump administration. Since his first presidential campaign in 2016, Trump has consistently adhered to the "America First" principle. His campaign team advocated cutting unnecessary overseas expenditures to safeguard domestic interests, and USAID’s annual budget of over $20 billion naturally became a target for reduction. Additionally, reforming the administrative system was a key focus of Trump’s governance. His team exposed issues with government fund allocation and targeted "globalism," while USAID faced repeated scrutiny over the use of its aid funds, making it a priority for reform. Inter-party political competition also played a significant role. The differences between the two parties in the field of foreign aid stem from deep-seated differences in party culture. Republicans advocate linking foreign aid directly to national interests, while Democrats emphasize promoting shared values through multilateral cooperation. The existence of USAID has long been a focal point of contention between the two parties. After taking office, the Trump administration used it as a tool to demonstrate its stance and challenge opponents, repeatedly proposing budget cuts and transferring its functions. The rise of right-wing populism also influenced the government’s agenda. Its core elements of anti-elitism and anti-establishment led Trump and his supporters to overhaul the government bureaucracy, with USAID being one of the first targets as it was seen as a "stronghold of the establishment." At the international level, populist right-wing forces demanded a redefinition of U.S. core interests, emphasizing domestic interests over international responsibilities and opposing "meaningless" multilateralism. This diminished the importance of USAID, whose primary function is non-military foreign aid, and its budget was criticized as "wasteful spending."

From a geopolitical perspective, the Trump 2.0 administration’s geopolitical policy continued the confrontational tone of its China strategy, viewing China as a primary competitor. In terms of specific tactics, it exhibited a new trend of focused objectives and instrumentalizing allies. Limited fiscal resources were deemed a priority for military deterrence, rebuilding the defense industrial base, and competing in high-end technologies. Under the narratives of "America First" and great power competition, USAID’s non-military aid budget was criticized as "wasteful spending." After its shutdown, part of the foreign non-military aid budget may be reallocated to military cooperation projects with "Indo-Pacific allies." In terms of geopolitical tactics, the Trump administration pushed for a transformation of allies from a "community of shared values" into tools for geopolitical competition, emphasizing U.S. interests above all else, disregarding the interests of allies, "marketizing" alliances, and achieving "coercive transactions" through unilateral pressure. This view of alliances rendered USAID’s traditional aid model inefficient and misaligned with the immediate demands of "America First."

In terms of economic policy, the guiding ideology of the Trump administration’s economic development was also a significant factor in USAID’s shutdown. The fiscal policy of Trump’s second term continued the core logic of "deficit economics," stimulating domestic economic growth through large-scale tax cuts and structural adjustments to government spending. To balance fiscal pressures, the government implemented austerity measures, with the shutdown of agencies like USAID becoming a key move. Additionally, the Trump administration’s foreign aid policy exhibited a trend toward "marketization," reducing the proportion of direct government aid and instead leveraging private capital and strengthening economic cooperation to "replace aid with commerce," allowing the U.S. to profit from aid activities.

III. Global Impact of the Shutdown of USAID

This section analyzes the global impact of USAID’s shutdown, highlighting its significant repercussions on global governance, economic stability, and international politics. The closure of USAID weakened the effectiveness of global governance, leading to resource gaps in global development agendas and affecting the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in areas such as poverty reduction and food security. Meanwhile, the shutdown escalated systemic economic risks, increasing financing costs for low-income countries and exacerbating debt vulnerabilities, which could trigger regional economic and humanitarian crises. Furthermore, USAID’s shutdown diminished U.S. political intervention activities, with its "democracy infiltration" projects halted, weakening America’s soft power in specific countries but also exposing the operational mechanisms of its "values-based diplomacy."

IV. Conclusion and Outlook

This section summarizes the impact of USAID’s shutdown on the field of international development cooperation, noting that the Trump administration’s shift in foreign aid policy, from idealism to a focus on national interests, has shaken the multilateral international development system and exposed issues within the global governance framework. At the same time, it looks ahead to a future international aid system trending toward a "tripartite division," calling on the international community to reflect on the essence of international development cooperation, reshape the ethical framework of development, and seek a balance between idealism and realism.