Over the past couple of weeks, mass disarray has erupted in vulnerable communities across the world with the dismantling of USAID, leaving them in dire conditions and in an optimal environment for terrorism to bloom. As the Trump organization ends U.S. humanitarian work abroad under the guise of saving American taxpayers’ money, they could make the United States liable for the formation of new extremist organizations.
The U.S. has been engaged in the War on Terror for over 20 years through costly military operations of mixed success that have been widely unpopular in part due to the high death tolls of up to 4.7 million people. The U.S. government’s counter-terrorism efforts and priorities warrant a reevaluation.
While the American tradition of counter-terrorism involves prioritization of military action only when organizations gain uncontrollable influence in their respective regions, the U.S. must seek initiatives to combat terrorism at its root. One of the most vital and practical aspects of countering terrorism at its root isn’t putting boots on the ground, but aiding the vulnerable. Ending USAID could weaken the U.S. government’s most essential counterterrorism tool.
When analyzing the environments in which foreign terrorist organizations begin, there are considerable indications of a desperate need for humanitarian assistance and stability. Political instability and lack of public services have long existed in the Middle East and West Africa. Unsurprisingly, terrorist and extremist organizations exploit these poor conditions to build their influence and bolster extremist ideologies.
With Lebanon’s frequent instability, the paramilitary organization Hezbollah, a Lebanese political party and militant group deemed a terrorist organization by the U.S., sought humanitarian means to support the recruitment of new members. The lack of healthcare in Lebanon, fueled by the First Israeli Invasion and ongoing conflicts, has left civilians in a persistent humanitarian crisis. Seeing the gaps in humanitarian access has prompted Hezbollah to establish humanitarian efforts that bolstered their recruitment efforts due to the lack of help from foreign aid. Hezbollah currently manages over a dozen hospitals in Lebanon, such as the prominent al-Rasoul al-Aazam, which treats thousands of patients in the gap of the poor infrastructure. As a politically dominant presence in Lebanon, it supports the people of Lebanon but also provides anti-Western propaganda and prioritizes its authoritarian status over the lives of the Lebanese as it has monopolized the healthcare industry.
Amid active war zones in Somalia’s civil war, a lack of youth education remains a critical issue; Al-Shabaab, a Salafi jihadist military organization, took control of education systems in Somalia and “mandate[d] schools teach a militant form of jihad emphasizing that students should wage war on those it deemed infidels,” according to the U.S. State Department. Al-Shabaab has continued to promote education initiatives within Somalia, indoctrinate the youth into Al-Shabaab, and bolster their recruitment numbers.
Ending USAID worldwide only widens the possibility of terrorist organizations exploiting the gaps of instability to strengthen their organizations’ public perception and recruitment initiatives.
Before the cuts, USAID provided critical communities economic development, job growth, education, and food security that diminished the influence of extremist organizations as governing bodies. In 2023, 27% of USAID’s $71 billion budget went to economic development, 21.7% to humanitarian assistance, 22.3% to health initiatives such as HIV/AIDs work, and 14.9% to peace and security initiatives directed within Africa, Latin America, and Eurasia. This actively reduced the presence of terrorist organizations within the respective regions by substituting the potential influence of extremist groups over certain social services and resources in place of American entities. By cutting these programs, the U.S. will directly hinder economic development and progress toward stability in over 130 countries. The primary funding for these initiatives goes to critical nations embroiled in military conflicts with a significant extremist presence. Countries such as Jordan, South Sudan, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Yemen will now be in positions that allow terrorist organizations stronger access points to exploit social services for their benefit.
As such the US government is letting civilians within these critical countries potentially develop anti-American sentiments and allowing terrorist organizations stronger points that they can actively exploit through humanitarian means. Directly providing aid to critical nations can prevent the United States government from letting groups they deem “terrorist” and hold anti-western sentiments thrive.
Thus, if the U.S. truly cared about ending terrorist organizations, it would focus its efforts on combating extremist organizations at their source and bolster humanitarian efforts rather than diminishing them. Ending USAID will only weaken foreign counter-terrorism efforts and increase the risk of growth among terrorist organizations.