The Cost of Retreat: What the Closure of USAID Could Mean for U.S. Influence

 In the architecture of American foreign policy, military power is often the most visible pillar. But behind the scenes, a quieter force has long worked to build bridges, strengthen alliances, and foster democratic values around the world: the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Though rarely in the spotlight, USAID’s influence is deeply woven into the global fabric—from the legal and economic reforms and support in Eastern Europe to the health clinics of Sub-Saharan Africa.

But what happens if that force is removed? What would the world—and America’s place in it—look like without USAID?

John R. Rieger’s ‘USAID and Eastern Europe’ is a groundbreaking book that explores precisely this dynamic, demonstrating how development assistance has served as an indispensable tool of U.S. diplomacy, particularly during times of geopolitical transition. His analysis invites serious reflection on what the loss of such an agency would mean, not just for recipient nations but for the United States itself.

Development as a Strategic Asset

USAID’s role goes far beyond disaster relief or poverty alleviation. It is a frontline instrument of soft power. In fragile or transitioning states, development assistance provides a stabilizing foundation where military solutions cannot. It nurtures institutions, promotes transparency, and equips civil society to play a meaningful role in governance.

In post-Soviet Eastern Europe, for example, USAID didn’t just fund projects—it helped guide systemic change. This kind of strategic support cannot be replicated by embassies or armed forces. It requires sustained, civilian-led engagement—and USAID has long filled that role.

The Geopolitical Risks of Withdrawal

In a world increasingly shaped by multipolar competition, retreating from development engagement would hand a powerful advantage to rival actors—especially China and Russia. Where USAID steps back, others are quick to fill the vacuum.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a prime example of how infrastructure and investment are used to expand political influence. Meanwhile, Russia leverages energy, disinformation, and strategic aid to win favor in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. If the U.S. were to shutter or significantly scale down USAID, it would cede ground not only in economic terms but in ideological ones.

The absence of USAID would leave vulnerable states with fewer options—and fewer reasons to trust Western models of governance and development.

The Human and Institutional Fallout

Beyond geopolitical shifts, the closure of USAID would directly affect millions of lives. Schools would go unfunded, health programs would collapse, and local civil society organizations—many of which rely on USAID grants to monitor elections, advocate for human rights, or run anti-corruption campaigns—would lose critical support.

Moreover, institutional memory would be lost. USAID is not just a funder; it is a repository of global development knowledge, with decades of experience navigating the complexities of post-conflict societies, economic transitions, and public sector reform. To dismantle that expertise would be to discard one of the most cost-effective instruments in the U.S. foreign policy toolkit.

Foreign Policy Without Development: A Blunt Tool

Foreign policy without development is a blunt instrument. Military might can protect borders, but it cannot build societies. Diplomacy can sign treaties, but it cannot create jobs or fund schools. Development, by contrast, does all of the above—and it does so while generating goodwill, building trust, and shaping narratives in favor of the United States.

To close USAID would be to signal that America is turning inward, disengaging from the moral and practical responsibilities of leadership. It would confirm the fears of allies and embolden adversaries who seek to redefine the global order.

As ‘USAID and Eastern Europe’ by John R. Rieger shows, development assistance is not peripheral to foreign policy—it is central to it. To close the doors of USAID would not only diminish America's reach abroad but erode its identity as a nation that leads not just by force, but by example.

Amazon: https://a.co/d/elUNd9F
Barnes & Noble: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/usaid-and-eastern-europe-john-r-rieger/1147950277?ean=9798349534119