A new US humanitarian agency must operate without political blinders
The United States government is considering replacing USAID with a new agency, the US Agency for International Humanitarian Assistance (USIHA), according to documents published by POLITICO. Under the proposed design, the agency will fail its task within the decade.
To succeed, its personnel cannot wear ideological blinders on the sources of crises as they work to prevent them. The agency can—and should—work with partners, including Australia, to assess and share the burden of this crisis prevention.
The agency’s proposed goal is to advance and secure US interests and soft power by preventing crises from escalating into more costly events that require military intervention. This is an excellent goal, but it won’t work if it’s not done well.
Even as part of a transactional strategy to align assistance with concessions, the agency must still respond to what global partners want. The Pacific islands, for example, have been consistent and clear about the interests they’re seeking support on—particularly climate change—and will engage with anyone who takes their concerns seriously. The US has a right to choose where and how it delivers support, but the gaps in that support will be filled by competitors, causing the US to lose influence.
To prepare and prioritise its work, USIHA must be given the independence to assess and respond to global crises based on what’s best for the US—not forced to address a limited set of crises that are politically palatable at any given time. The world is complicated, and the US needs more, not less, awareness. But much of this capacity in the US government has already been curtailed by cost-cutting exercises. An agency can’t tackle crises at the source if it doesn’t understand them, which means US agencies will start falling behind the curve.
If the US administration wants USIHA to serve its interests, it should move to reinstate all such assessment and planning capacity (after it decides Department of Government Efficiency is no longer useful). This must include climate science and meteorological services that provide crucial early warning systems for disastrous weather and climate risks.
Climate change provides a perfect example of how this new agency could quickly fail.
The current administration has treated climate change as an ideological issue, and officials have worked to cut any reference to it they can find. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has himself claimed the Department of Defense ‘doesn’t do climate change crap’.
Pure and simple, this is a misunderstanding. Climate change is driven by physics, and it does not have feelings or care what we call it. Its consequences touch every single aspect of where and how we live, whether through more frequent heatwaves, higher sea-levels or more intense storms and wildfires. Secretary of State Marco Rubio would understand this, considering the increasingly intense hurricanes affecting his home state of Florida.
Managing climate change is about managing risk—determining where, when, and the likelihood its effects will bring harm (or opportunity). There may be different ways to manage that risk, but there is no opting out. We either act, or we let it happen to us. That’s the choice ahead of us.
Climate change is a multiplying factor of future conflicts and tensions that will affect US national security interests while degrading capacity—so the US Department of Defense has to ‘do climate change crap’ whether it wants to or not. This includes dealing with rising sea levels and floods, adapting to changes in submarine warfare and planning for changes to airlift capabilities. It will get harder, not easier, the longer it’s put off.
Similarly, USIHA will fail if it focuses on a narrow set of parameters. There’s no doubt aid and development systems need reform, and there’s no question that global partners can and should move toward greater self-sufficiency. These are goals that everyone wants.
But making these changes will require dedicated and concerted planning, not fast moves designed to break a system and see what shakes out. That approach might work in Silicon Valley startups and boardrooms, but in the real world it costs lives. Such instability can drive the kinds of threats the US wants to avoid dealing with.
Say what you will about USAID, but their professionals were committed to their work and delivered it with integrity, in contrast to a few young, inexperienced keyboard warriors with power that exceeds their sense of responsibility. They should bear the guilt of their actions for years to come—even if they didn’t fully comprehend the consequences of enthusiastically pulling apart a system they did not understand.
If the proposal for USIHA moves past legal challenges to USAID’s status and remains a priority of the US administration, it must be developed and operated with eyes wide open to all risks. If that doesn’t happen, it won’t be worth the investment, and US interests will suffer in the process.