controversial

USAID should have been shut down

Think you know how your friend would answer?

Play Do You Really Know Me?Includes this prompt
0For
0Against

The debate over shutting down USAID centers on conflicting views of its role in global affairs. Proponents claim the agency is inefficient and misaligned with U.S. interests, while critics warn its dissolution would devastate global health, education, and humanitarian efforts. The controversy reflects broader tensions between fiscal conservatism and international responsibility.

Arguments For

  • Shutting down USAID could redirect billions in annual funding to domestic priorities like infrastructure or defense.
  • Integrating remaining operations into the State Department may streamline aid delivery and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies.
  • Abolishing USAID could allow the U.S. to focus foreign policy on strategic alliances rather than broad developmental aid.
  • Supporters argue that USAID’s budget, while modest compared to military spending, is poorly spent on programs with unclear outcomes.
  • The move aligns with Trump-era rhetoric emphasizing sovereignty and reducing perceived 'waste' in foreign assistance.

Arguments Against

  • Closing USAID would lead to preventable deaths from diseases like HIV, malaria, and malnutrition, as evidenced by Harvard studies.
  • The loss of U.S. leadership in global health and development could erode international goodwill and alliances.
  • Cutting aid may exacerbate instability in vulnerable regions, creating long-term security risks for the U.S.
  • Oxfam and other groups highlight that aid cuts could deprive 23 million children of education and 95 million people of healthcare.
  • The agency’s dissolution risks damaging the U.S. reputation as a humanitarian leader, undermining soft power globally.

Discussion

Play a game before joining the discussion.

No comments yet.

Now put your friendship to the test

Answer five prompts, predict each other, and see who really knows whom.

Play Do You Really Know Me?