Development assistance is a strategic investment in U.S. national security, and the unique capabilities USAID had developed will continue to be essential to U.S. foreign policy.

BY ERIN E. MCKEE

American foreign assistance stands as one of the most powerful yet frequently misunderstood instruments of national power. Far from representing mere charity, development diplomacy constitutes a sophisticated strategic investment in America’s future security and prosperity—one that embodies our values while advancing our interests in an increasingly complex global landscape. When American health care experts collaborate with local providers to strengthen medical systems, when our engineers partner with community leaders to develop sustainable water infrastructure, or when our agricultural specialists work alongside farmers to enhance food security, these interactions create enduring bonds built on shared accomplishment and mutual respect.

These partnerships yield concrete economic dividends that directly benefit U.S. businesses and workers. Countries that once received U.S. development assistance have transformed into vibrant trading partners and regional stabilizers. South Korea—once devastated by war and poverty—now imports more than $65 billion in American goods and services annually, supporting hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Taiwan, Poland, Chile, and Colombia have followed similar trajectories, evolving from aid recipients into economic partners and democratic allies that amplify U.S. influence and values across their regions.

This approach has consistently demonstrated superior long-term results compared to transactional or extractive models employed by strategic competitors Russia and China. Yet recent policy shifts are destroying the development architecture that has enabled America’s effectiveness. These changes compromise critical capacities that have been central to U.S. global influence and that cannot be easily replicated within a traditional diplomatic framework.

In the following I will discuss the unique capacities that have been and will continue to be essential to effective U.S. assistance and offer some proposals for the way forward.

Critical Aspects of Development Infrastructure

Technical Specialization and Operational Reach. USAID cultivated specialized knowledge in domains critical to stability and prosperity—global health security, agricultural systems, democratic governance, and humanitarian response—that operate according to different principles and timelines than traditional diplomacy.

The agency’s field presence extended into remote and complex environments where formal diplomatic footprints remain minimal, enabling direct engagement with local communities and real-time adaptation of programs. This operational reach has provided America with eyes and ears in regions where strategic competitors seek to expand their influence, delivering critical intelligence and relationship networks that traditional diplomatic channels cannot replicate.

Consider the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. USAID’s specialized expertise in health systems strengthening, community engagement, and crisis logistics, coupled with its extensive network of local partnerships, enabled the United States to mount a comprehensive response that contained the epidemic before it could become a global pandemic threatening American citizens.

USAID’s field presence extended into remote and complex environments where formal diplomatic footprints remain minimal.

Local Knowledge. Perhaps the most severe casualty of current policy shifts is the dismantling of relationships with locally employed staff and indigenous organizations—many of whom have served American missions for decades. These individuals possess contextual understanding and relationship networks that cannot be found in policy briefings or academic studies. They navigate complex cultural landscapes, speak local languages, and maintain connections with communities far beyond the reach of American officers.

The value of this local knowledge became painfully apparent in Afghanistan, where America’s limited understanding of tribal dynamics and governance structures hampered stabilization efforts despite massive financial investments. Successful counterinsurgency initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places, focused on creating employment opportunities and increasing incomes, while also reaching out to youth. This approach relied heavily on local staff who could interpret subtle community dynamics and distinguish between effective local partners and opportunistic actors.

Institutional Memory in Crisis Environments. In fragile states and conflict zones, locally employed staff have often served as the institutional memory of U.S. missions, bridging transitions between U.S. personnel who typically rotate every two to three years. They provided continuity of relationships and understanding that enables effective engagement across political transitions and security fluctuations.

Pakistan offers a sobering historical example of the costs when this capacity is lost. After 9/11, when the United States needed to rapidly scale up engagement in Pakistan after years of limited presence, American officials discovered that previous budget-driven dismissals of local staff had severely compromised our networks and our understanding of local political dynamics. The lack of institutional memory and trusted local contacts demonstrably hampered America’s ability to effectively engage at a pivotal security moment.

A Profound Misstep

The recent termination of almost all USAID local staff positions across American missions is a profound strategic misstep that will reverberate for decades. The immediate consequences are already becoming apparent in multiple domains.

First, the United States is systematically blinding itself to on-the-ground realities. The loss of development programming and engagement severely diminishes our ability to identify emerging threats, engage emerging leaders, and counter competitor narratives.

Second, the abrupt disruption of partnerships represents the abandonment of decades of American investment in local capacity. By severing these relationships without transition plans, America not only wastes this investment but signals that its commitments shift with political winds.

Given the severe consequences of current policies, immediate action is required to both mitigate damage and create a sustainable path forward.

Third, many locally employed staff have taken considerable personal risks to work with the U.S. Their sudden termination demonstrates callous disregard for their contributions and sacrifices, undermining America’s moral authority and reputation as a reliable partner.

Fourth, while America dismantles its development infrastructure, China’s Belt and Road Initiative continues to forge new partnerships with fewer transparency requirements and less regard for environmental standards, labor rights, or long-term debt sustainability.

This retreat from wielding our most critical soft-power tool is occurring precisely when global challenges—pandemic threats, climate disruption, technological competition, and democratic backsliding—demand sustained, sophisticated engagement. These challenges directly affect American security and prosperity; yet they cannot be effectively addressed through traditional diplomatic or military tools alone.

Looking Ahead: Damage Control and Renewal

Amid these challenges, we must articulate a forward-looking vision for American development diplomacy that preserves proven strengths while adapting to emerging global realities. This vision must recognize development not as an isolated charitable endeavor but as an integral component of a comprehensive national security strategy.

A modernized American development capability must maintain independent implementation capacity and specialized expertise while establishing more effective coordination mechanisms with diplomatic, defense, and economic agencies.

The development perspective—with its deep understanding of local contexts and longer time horizons—must be systematically integrated into national security deliberations through formalized institutional mechanisms. This will become much more difficult once USAID is “merged” into the State Department, as is now underway, and development diplomacy becomes “managed” from Washington, far removed from where the relationships, the impact, and the work matter most.

However, given the severe consequences of current policies, immediate action is required to both mitigate damage and create a sustainable path forward. This approach must recognize political realities while preserving core strategic capabilities.

Congress should establish an emergency “Local Staff Retention Fund” focused on maintaining critical positions at priority missions. Preserving even 30 to 40 percent of critical local positions would maintain essential institutional knowledge and relationship networks that would otherwise be irretrievably lost. This approach should prioritize positions based on strategic importance, specialized knowledge, and relationship networks, with special attention to staff with extensive experience or rare language skills.

Rather than terminating indigenous partnerships abruptly, the State Department should implement a structured “Partnership Transition Program.”

Rather than terminating indigenous partnerships abruptly, the State Department should implement a structured “Partnership Transition Program” that provides graduated funding reductions, technical assistance for organizational sustainability, and support for consolidating capabilities through strategic mergers. A certification program could recognize high-performing local organizations, enhancing their credibility with other donors and supporting their long-term viability.

American corporations, foundations, and nongovernmental organizations represent potential partners in maintaining critical programs and relationships. A coordinated “Partnership Preservation Initiative” could engage private sector entities in supporting high-impact development programs in regions where they have business interests, creating shared value while maintaining vital relationships. A matching fund approach, where government provides partial funding if private entities contribute, could leverage limited public resources while engaging broader American society in global development.

To prevent the complete loss of institutional knowledge, the U.S. government should develop a comprehensive “Strategic Knowledge Repository” documenting local expertise, successful programming approaches, and evaluation findings. This database would preserve lessons learned and maintain contact information for former staff and partners, enabling more effective future engagement when political circumstances permit restoration of development capabilities.

Development as Strategic Investment

The path forward requires recognizing that development engagement constitutes a vital instrument of national power that complements traditional diplomatic and military tools. Development partnerships are not luxury items to be discarded during budget constraints or political transitions. They represent strategic assets that advance American prosperity and security through relationships built on trust and mutual benefit.

By preserving these accomplishments and capabilities now—even in reduced form—the United States can avoid the far greater costs of rebuilding them later, when their absence has already damaged national interests. This approach demonstrates true fiscal responsibility while protecting America’s strategic position in a complex and competitive global landscape.

Even as operational capacity is reduced, the U.S. should maintain communication channels with former partners and staff through virtual forums, alumni networks, and digital platforms for continued knowledge sharing. These modest investments would maintain relationships that might otherwise be severed permanently, preserving options for future engagement.

Most important, we must begin planning now for the eventual restoration of critical development capabilities. This requires creating a prioritized list of capacities most urgent to protect, preserve, or restore; maintaining contact with former staff who could help rebuild; and establishing rapid response protocols for reengagement opportunities.

Our development partnerships have represented America at its best—engaging the world through collaboration rather than coercion, building capacity rather than dependency, and demonstrating that American leadership derives not just from power but from partnership.

This legacy deserves not just protection but renewal through a vision of development diplomacy that advances American interests while addressing the defining challenges of our time. We must act now before it is too late to protect, preserve, modernize, and restore America’s development capabilities.

Erin E. McKee is a career Foreign Service officer and global strategist with extensive experience in U.S. national security, governance, and economic diplomacy. A two-time Senate-confirmed official serving five presidential administrations, she most recently led USAID’s Europe and Eurasia operations, managing a $30 billion portfolio across 17 locations. Previously, as U.S. ambassador to Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu, she helped strengthen America’s strategic position in the Indo-Pacific region. She is a recipient of the Presidential Distinguished Service Award.

Read More...

• “Working Together for a Smart Foreign Policy” by Sen. Chris Coons, The Foreign Service Journal, December 2018
• “Democracy as a Vocation” by José M. Garzón, The Foreign Service Journal, September 2022
• “USAID: A Critical National Security Tool” by Steven E. Hendrix, The Foreign Service Journal, October 2024