Q&A: Senior Lecturer Rebecca Wolfe Discusses the Trump Administration’s Actions on Foreign Aid and Humanitarian Programs

 

Rebecca J. Wolfe is a leading expert on political violence, conflict, and violent extremism. She is a Senior Lecturer at the Harris School for Public Policy at the University of Chicago. Prior to joining the faculty, she led research and program development related to conflict and fragility at Mercy Corps, an international development and humanitarian agency. 

Over her career, Wolfe has developed conflict prevention and violence reduction programs globally, including Kenya’s largest youth development program, gang violence prevention in Guatemala City, countering violent extremism programs in Nigeria and Yemen, and community-based conflict management interventions in Iraq, Syria, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and Tajikistan.

We sat down with her to talk about the effects of the Trump administration’s actions on foreign aid and humanitarian programs, part of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) effort to reduce government spending.

What have been the impacts of the Trump administration and DOGE on foreign aid?

In a word, the impact is cruelty.

The current mentality is to “move fast and break things,” which is not useful in humanitarian settings.  The way these efforts are being implemented, it’s creating problems – from disease outbreaks to lost lives. By just canceling programs overnight, you don’t allow for a reasonable handover to local or other groups who might be able to administer them. To cite one example, there has been a bit of an outbreak of Ebola in Uganda. The US  is/was a leader in containing Ebola outbreaks.  It would be wonderful for the Ugandan government to be able to maintain that program, which would require a properly conceived handover strategy. I did see Elon Musk in the first U.S. Cabinet meeting saying, "We accidentally cut some Ebola prevention programs," with a chuckle. Meanwhile, a colleague whose agency runs stabilization centers for infants let me know they just had to pull the plugs – literally.

Was there an opportunity to reform USAID and international aid more broadly?

There is certainly an opportunity to do thoughtful reform of USAID and our general foreign aid apparatus, as there is with any large institution.  I saw that firsthand when I worked on programs whose budgets had grown quite large.

What’s ironic, though, is that even though USAID has been singled out, it probably has more responsible and thorough oversight than most other federal agencies, due to the longstanding concerns – on both the right and the left – that aid wasn’t making it to its intended recipients, or that it could fall into the hands of terrorists.

In many ways, USAID has been one of the few true learning organizations in the federal government. The agency has an evaluation policy, runs randomized controlled trials of programs, and conducts cost-effectiveness analyses. Additionally, the OIG office for aid is quite strong too.

Is it only the U.S., or is there a broader trend with respect to reducing foreign and humanitarian aid?

It’s happening across the West. There’s clearly a trend toward isolationism.

The United States government wasn't the first to roll back support for international aid.  For years, the UK government has been cutting. They used to give 0.7% of their budget, before reducing it to 0.5%. And, in a recent meeting with President Trump, UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer announced that he wanted to reduce the amount further to 0.3% and put the rest toward defense. Germany had already started to roll back, and the current government will probably roll back even more. The Netherlands have announced reductions, as has Belgium.

None of this is entirely driven by a desire to align with America; it’s the reality of each country’s internal politics.

How have Democrats and Republicans typically thought about foreign aid?

It was a bipartisan area. Both parties understood the importance of soft power, of which aid is a major part. Everyone was rightfully proud of the effects of PEPFAR, the Bush administration’s efforts to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa, for instance.

Before I joined UChicago, I was part of a group that started a project which became the Global Fragility Act of 2019, a bipartisan bill under the first Trump administration intending to prevent violence in fragile countries. Senator Lindsey Graham was a big supporter of the legislation at the time. The political process made the final legislation deeply flawed, but the premise was broadly supported.

Things are much different today. 

Geopolitically, where should Americans be focusing their attention?

Right now, there is a window of opportunity to ensure Syria solidifies the end of the war. Instead, violence is increasing in Syria. During the first Trump administration, I was based in the region for a couple of months as I was naively hopeful the war would end then. The international community should be coalescing around a reconstruction strategy for Syria, in the post-Assad chaos, so that what we saw in Iraq and what emerged in Syria during the previous conflict doesn't happen again. At the moment, however, there’s a power vacuum, and the US is ceding the leadership role to others. It’s hard to imagine a good outcome, but an effective aid effort could influence what happens. 

What about China?

Shuttering USAID is a boon for China when it comes to soft power. They may give a little more now in aid, especially with respect to infrastructure and health care, but they won’t have to do much – it’s easy to win if you’re the only game in town. They tend not to do much in conflict areas, especially if there are not natural resources that interest them. Nor do they give much support for humanitarian programs; most of their support is focused on development (e.g., Bridge and Road Initiative). 

What should we know about the people who administer foreign aid?

They are doing truly noble work. They deserve our admiration and respect, not our mockery. Many of them put their lives at risk, and all are working to make our country safer.  To me, speaking ill of our aid workers is comparable to denigrating our soldiers. It’s just not right.

We need to support their work, and we need to keep them safe. We've seen deaths of humanitarian workers increase, especially since Afghanistan.

One thing I worry about is that if aid simply becomes another bargaining chip, we’re putting humanitarian aid workers in greater jeopardy. We need to be able to protect all people, not just people on one side of any given conflict. This isn’t supposed to be transactional – it’s about saving lives and improving quality of life.