By Joen Martinsen and Pascaline Gaborit
In a sweeping effort to slash the U.S. budget deficit, the Trump administration, along with the unofficial Department of Government Expenditure (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, has moved to dismantle USAID—placing nearly all employees on leave and freezing foreign aid programs. In an unprecedented act of executive overreach, security personnel blocked agency staff from accessing their offices, plunging billions in foreign aid into uncertainty and bringing critical humanitarian efforts to an abrupt halt.
A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order, ruling that the dissolution of USAID contradicts the Constitution and falls within the Congress' authority. However, the dismantling remains in effect pending a final court decision. Having already relied on disinformation to justify the move, the administration’s actions pose a pressing question: what are the limits of Disinformation-Driven Governance?
Since its establishment at the height of the Cold War, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has played a critical role in advancing American interests abroad. With an annual budget of $63 billion in 2024—approximately 1% of the total U.S. federal budget—USAID has long been an instrument of both liberal and realist foreign policy traditions. For decades, bipartisan consensus has sustained U.S. foreign aid, recognizing its strategic value in maintaining global stability and extending American influence. However, the Trump administration’s abrupt decision to shut down USAID marks a radical departure from this historical precedent, signaling a shift toward an isolationist "America First" ideology.
The Political Context: From Consensus to Radicalism
Historically, U.S. foreign aid has been viewed through two primary lenses. Realists regard it as a tool of statecraft—leveraging economic assistance to maintain geopolitical influence—while liberals see it as a means to foster international cooperation and economic interdependence. Both perspectives have supported the continuation of USAID for over 60 years, across both Democratic and Republican administrations. However, neither of these traditional frameworks appears to guide the current administration’s foreign policy calculus. Instead, the decision to dismantle USAID aligns with a broader strategy of governmental retrenchment, driven by a mix of ideological rigidity, fiscal reductionism, and misinformation.
Disinformation as a Political Weapon
The shutdown of USAID was justified through a campaign of misleading claims, exaggerations, and outright fabrications.
The administration framed the agency as inefficient, wasteful, and ideologically biased, employing selective data points to build a narrative of dysfunction. Some of the most widely circulated claims included:
- $2 million for Moroccan pottery classes – In reality, this funding supported Moroccan artisans in preserving cultural heritage and expanding economic opportunities.
- $40 billion for electric vehicle (EV) ports with only eight completed – The actual allocation was $7.5 billion, with over 200 chargers already operational and thousands more in development.
- $1.5 million to advance DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives in Serbian workplaces – A mischaracterization of broader economic and governance initiatives aimed at promoting workplace equity.
- $50 million taxpayer dollars that went out the door to fund condoms in Gaza - There are no records or evidence of such spending. Trump and his spokesperson referenced a $102 million USAID grant to the International Medical Corps (IMC), an NGO providing medical aid in Gaza. IMC clarified that since the October 7 Hamas attack, it had received over $68 million from USAID but stated no U.S. funding was used for condoms or family planning.
- $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland, $47,000 for a trans opera in Colombia, and $32,000 for a trans comic book in Peru – These figures were cherry-picked to sensationalize minor expenditures within much larger cultural diplomacy programs.
Such distortions were not mere mistakes; they were deliberate strategies designed to evoke outrage and justify a sweeping policy shift. This tactic aligns with a broader trend in contemporary American politics: the use of disinformation to undermine institutions and consolidate power.
The disinformation attacks were also external. A Russian disinformation campaign widely circulated a fabricated report falsely attributed to the U.S. broadcaster E!. This report claimed that celebrities such as Ben Stiller and Angelina Jolie had received USAID funds for visits to Ukraine to bolster President Zelensky’s public image. However, E! denied producing the report, and verifiable records confirm that neither Stiller nor Jolie received any government funding—both financed their trips independently.
What is particularly significant is not merely that Russian media propagated this false narrative, but that Elon Musk and Donald Trump Jr. actively amplified it, sharing and endorsing the disinformation as factual. Corrective fact-checking suggested that they “fell for it”, but a more precise interpretation is that they were indifferent to its accuracy. This was not a simple misstep but rather a strategic willingness to undermine a US federal department with disinformation to gain public support for their own political agenda. And the administration has a common goal with Russian disinformation actors, making the US more vulnerable to disinformation threats when the presidential apparatus itself amplifies false stories. We will likely continue to see this alliance when ever the trump administration as of interest to undermine opposition or institutional road bumps in the way of consolidating their power.
The Consequences: A Global Ripple Effect
Beyond the domestic political theater, the ramifications of this decision are profound. USAID has been a cornerstone of global humanitarian efforts, funding critical programs in health, education, and economic development. Its abrupt dissolution poses severe risks, including:
- Public Health Crises – The United Nations has warned that without U.S. foreign aid, global HIV reinfections could skyrocket. UNAIDS estimates that by 2029, the number of new infections could reach 8.7 million, with AIDS-related deaths surging to 6.3 million.
- Geopolitical Instability – USAID plays a key role in stabilizing fragile regions. The withdrawal of funding threatens to create power vacuums that hostile state and non-state actors could exploit.
- Economic Disruptions – Many developing economies rely on U.S. aid to sustain essential public services. The sudden cessation of funding could lead to widespread economic downturns, exacerbating global inequality and migration pressures.
USAID is made up of so many modules it is impossible to cover all the development, institutional building, food aid, relief, conflict support etc. The range is wide, and so will the shutdown also impact if these activities are not replaced, and so fast.
The Bigger Picture: A Strategic Blunder
While no government agency is immune to inefficiencies, the proper response is reform, not eradication. There are probably many debates to be taken about how USAID operates and what priorities it should have and the spending it has partaken in. One could probably add a lot more critique to the agency than what the Trump administration put forward. However, if Elon Musk and Doge were really interested in fixing the government budget deficit, they wouldn’t need to spread false claims about the agency. By shutting down USAID entirely, the administration has not only dismantled a crucial instrument of American soft power but also create more chaos in the world that doesn’t benefit the US in the long run. The move reflects a broader pattern of governance that prioritizes spectacle over substance, leveraging disinformation to advance radical policy objectives.
What are the Strategies behind it?
The closure of USAID is more than a budgetary decision; it is a fundamental recalibration of America’s role in the world. At the same time, the act is also a test case for how far disinformation can be used to dismantle institutions. The Trump administration’s willingness to fabricate narratives, amplify falsehoods, and manipulate public perception suggests that no democratic safeguard is immune to such tactics. The erosion of institutional power checks—be it foreign aid agencies, Congress, or the judiciary—becomes far easier when the public is conditioned to accept disinformation as truth.
If this approach proves effective, what stops the administration from using similar methods to justify ignoring congressional oversight, bypassing judicial rulings, or delegitimizing electoral outcomes? By normalizing disinformation as a governing strategy, the current administration lays the groundwork for an unprecedented concentration of power. This is no longer just about USAID—it is about the broader implications for American democracy and the rule of law.
Sources
Alexander, C. (2018). The soft power of development: aid and assistance as public diplomacy activities. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7035-8_74-1
de Cazotte, H. (2019). The US elite consensus on aid. In Aid Power and Politics (pp. 53-72). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440236
