The International Relations Department hosted Cleo O’Brien-Udry, professor of international political economy at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, on Thursday to discuss the consequences of aid withdrawal and the shutdown of the United States Agency for International Development.
USAID began shutting down in January 2025 following President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The transition was tied to a broader restructuring effort through the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, which resulted in the immediate recall of USAID staff.
On Feb. 3, a $50 billion foreign aid bill was passed, though O’Brien-Udry said it reflects a shift in the goals of foreign aid.
She also said aid isn’t disappearing entirely but may no longer prioritize the same population or needs.
“It’s not moving to the same channels, and it’s being run by the State Department,” she said. “So its goals are pretty different from what USAID was doing, which was primarily thinking about international development. This is much more oriented toward securitization.”
O’Brien-Udry also said sudden policy shifts create instability, particularly in countries that rely on consistent external support, and that the effects extend beyond the immediate moment.
She emphasized that the speed of withdrawal is significant, as abrupt changes make it more difficult for countries and organizations to adjust than gradual transitions.
O’Brien-Udry said countries across Africa, including Malawi, Kenya, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as Yemen, have experienced significant impact.
Those impacts, she said, include reduced access to medication, including HIV/AIDS treatment, the loss of food programs and a reported 40% increase in violent events in aid-dependent communities.
O’Brien-Udry said these effects are interconnected, with disruptions in health care and food access contributing to broader instability.
She also discussed expectations surrounding the withdrawal, noting that the U.S. anticipated the European Union would help fill funding gaps. However, she said the EU is currently focused on its own priorities due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and U.S. tensions involving Greenland, limiting its ability to respond.
O’Brien-Udry said local governments have attempted to compensate for the loss of aid but often lack sufficient financial resources.
“(Governments) don’t have the savings that allow them to fill the gaps that are left by these sudden withdrawals,” she said. “Alternative donors also don’t share U.S. priorities. That means that it’s not just that the level of aid is going to change, but what aid is being used for is also going to change moving forward.”
She said other countries, including China through its Belt and Road Initiative and Gulf states that fund infrastructure and governance projects in primarily Muslim countries, have begun to step in.
O’Brien-Udry said these countries have greater capacity to provide funding compared with local governments.
Following her remarks, O’Brien-Udry held a Q&A session with attendees, focusing on student questions.
Lisa Tegyi, ‘29, said she wasn’t aware of the full extent of the effects of the USAID withdrawal.
“I knew it happened, and you can kind of assume what some of the implications are, but I didn’t know just how deep the implications were,” she said.
Tegyi said she was interested in learning more ways to reform inefficiencies in foreign aid without fully restructuring the system.
Jackson Kramp, ‘27, said he appreciated the discussion and said it reinforced his views on the cuts to USAID.
“I came into it not liking the cuts, and I still don’t like the cuts,” Kramp said. “She did a really good job of explaining the empirical and statistical ways we can prove that the cuts are bad based on historical trends. (The talk) was really valuable, because sometimes politics gets away from empiricism, and this has brought a lot.”
Kramp said he was interested in O’Brien-Udry’s perspective on the future of USAID, including whether it may return in its current form or as a different organization and how current political trends could shape that outcome.
Comment Policy
Comments posted to The Brown and White website are reviewed by a moderator before being approved. Incendiary speech or harassing language, including comments targeted at individuals, may be deemed unacceptable and not published. Spam and other soliciting will also be declined.
The Brown and White also reserves the right to refuse the publication of entirely anonymous comments.