As the United States grapples with shifting foreign policy priorities, new estimates reveal the devastating human cost of withdrawing global aid. According to The New York Times, a year without funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) could lead to over 3 million preventable deaths worldwide; primarily of non-white people. Experts are saying this act is genocidal in its intent. The numbers are staggering:
- 1.65 million deaths from AIDS as antiretroviral treatments disappear.
- 500,000 children at risk of death from lack of vaccines.
- 550,000 lives lost to hunger as food aid programs collapse.
- 290,000 deaths from malaria as mosquito nets and treatments go unfunded.
- 310,000 deaths from tuberculosis without access to medication.
These figures, shocking as they are, underscore a simple reality: USAID is not just a diplomatic tool— it is a lifeline for millions. Yet, as Washington debates budget cuts and isolationist policies gain traction, foreign assistance has become an easy target for austerity-minded lawmakers. This is the deadly reality of Elon Musk and Donald Trump’s administrative coup d’etat that dismantled USAID. It’s not lost on the public that these preventable deaths will primarily impact majority non-white communities and countries.
Regarding these figures, Salon’s senior political writer Amanda Marcotte stated that, “killing children is by design, I'm afraid. ‘Pro-natalists’ like Musk claim they aren't racist, but their pressure to have children is solely focused on white women, while they back policies that literally kill non-white children. He's a eugenicist.“ She added, “South Sudan is especially hard hit by the foreign aid cuts. It's also on the list of nations Trump is targeting for a travel ban. The goal is to trap people in situations where food is scarce and disease is rampant, so they die. It's genocidal in its intent.“
These reports come after Elon Musk notably posted and then deleted a false claim on Twitter/X asserting that “Hitler didn’t murder millions” of people.
USAID, founded in 1961 as a cornerstone of American foreign policy, has long been a key player in global health and humanitarian aid. Its programs have helped cut child mortality in half since 1990, nearly eradicated polio, and provided lifesaving HIV treatment to millions. But under increasing political pressure, its future is uncertain.
The argument against USAID funding often hinges on cost— yet, at just less than 1% of the federal budget, foreign aid is a fraction of what the U.S. spends on defense, corporate subsidies, or tax cuts for the wealthy. Meanwhile, the humanitarian cost of defunding these programs is measured in millions of lost lives.
Beyond the ghastly moral implications, pulling USAID funding would have profound geopolitical consequences. History has shown that instability follows when basic needs go unmet. Food insecurity, health crises, and economic collapse create fertile ground for extremist movements and mass migration, exacerbating global tensions. Cutting aid does not insulate the U.S. from these crises— it accelerates them.
Yet, rather than acknowledging this reality, policymakers increasingly frame foreign aid as an act of charity rather than a strategic investment. This is a dangerous miscalculation. From pandemic preparedness to countering authoritarian influence, USAID’s work is integral to global stability and, by extension, American security.
The debate over USAID funding is not about efficiency or spending— it is about humanitarian values. Do we accept a world where millions die from preventable diseases and hunger? Or do we recognize that global solidarity is not just an ethical imperative but a necessity in an interconnected world?
The price of inaction is measured in lives. The question now is whether the U.S. is willing to pay it.
