The Department of Government Efficiency, which is spearheading the drastic reduction of USAID‘s operation could inadvertently help terrorist recruitment. This is one possibility that counterterrorism experts have suggested.
DOGE under Elon Musk, and President Trump’s mandate to eliminate waste and fraud from federal expenditures, drastically reduced United States Agency for International Development. The reason given was alleged misuse and mismanagement of funds. Even after investigation, the accusations include that funding was provided to projects associated with designated terrorist groups.
But experts are concerned about unintended outcomes if USAID is reduced or removed from its humanitarian and development assistance role. It is the core argument that USAID programmes, when they are effective, reduce vulnerabilities and contribute to stability.
Richard Betts – Impact of Humanitarian Reductions on Terrorist recruitment
Richard K. Betts is a former advisor for CIA directors and professor at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He believes that cuts to vital health and food programmes can cause resentment and instability. Betts states that cuts to food and health programs which end up costing people their lives can embitter populations, and they will be exploited by anti American groups in propaganda. The effect of this will be moderate, but it could increase terrorist organization recruitment. This can lead to a lot of anger and desperation, which is fertile for extremist stories.
James Forest: Counterterrorism Co-operation and Intelligence Loss
James J. F. Forest is a professor and the director of the UMass Lowell School of Criminology and Justice Studies. He emphasizes the importance of cooperation between countries in the fight against terrorism. Forest states that it is much easier to combat terrorism from foreign countries when the people of those countries willingly share their intelligence, watch and report suspicious behaviour to the authorities and tackle the roots causes of violent extremism.
He claims that cutting USAID out of the picture risks damaging crucial relationships. We risk losing their support in counterterrorism when we ignore the needs of the people, refuse to make the kind of investments that USAID makes to foster long-term partnerships. A lack of trust or cooperation could hinder intelligence collection and make it harder to tackle the root causes of radicalization.
Colin Clarke: Islamic State franchises exploitation of USAID cutbacks
Colin P. Clarke of The Soufan Group’s research department highlights the potential strategic benefit that groups like Islamic State, and other extremist organizations, can gain by this. Clarke claims that “Islamic State Franchises” will profit as the underlying causes of violent extremeism such as poverty and widespread injustice and lack of accountability will become more evident, particularly in conflict zones, among refugees, and within populations internally displaced. The decision by USAID to curtail its activities is short-sighted in his view.
Clarke says that ignoring fragile countries and conflict areas can have serious global implications. The Trump Administration is likely to see an increase in terrorist attacks from West Africa into Southeast Asia, as a problem that belongs to someone else. However, his counterterrorism team would do him well to remember the 9/11 attacks had been planned by small groups of jihadists living in safe havens within a failed nation governed religious extremists located on the other side. Instability and extremism from one area can spread quickly to other regions, which poses a danger to international security.
The potential impacts of these USAID cuts, particularly concerning **terrorism recruitment**, **international cooperation in counterterrorism**, **Islamic State franchises**, and **root causes of violent extremism**, are complex and far-reaching.
These experts are concerned about the implications that foreign aid will have on the global security and stability in the future.