Fear, pain and hunger: The dire impact of shutting down USAID in Africa, leaving a vacuum for China and Russia

Bradskii said:

What on earth are you talking about? In almost every post that has decried the ending of aid, the point has been made that as well as the human toll that is ocurring as you read this, the influence of the US as a friend, as an ally, as someone a country could turn to for help has also been lost. And you talk as if that's a good thing.

Well, do you think it's in the US's interest that countries lime Russia and China will take up the slack? An AI view:

'The 2025 dismantling of USAID by the Trump administration, with ~83% of programs cut, has severely eroded U.S. soft power, reversing decades of diplomatic influence and allowing China to become the dominant bilateral partner in over 40 nations. This "soft power surrender" has caused, according to estimates, tens of thousands of deaths, broken humanitarian trust, and created a vacuum for rivals to fill.'

How Trump’s foreign aid and diplomatic cuts will make it harder for the US to wield soft power to maintain its friendships and win new ones

Soft power is a foreign-policy tool to get what a country wants without using force.

theconversation.com

'Soft power is the ability of nations, in this case the U.S., to use its appeal – and others’ affinity and often friendship toward it – to induce cooperation. In other words, it is a strategy to get others to do what the U.S. government wants them to do, but without coercion.

Since the end of World War II, it has been this soft power that has been the heart and soul of American foreign policy.'

And Trump has dismantled it. It's not simply the finances. It's the systems that were in place. It was organisations already running the aid. It was boots on the ground. But now you are going backwards in terms of your influence. Trump cannot comprehend that helping countries is more beneficial to you than threatening them. The damage he is doing will take perhaps generations to undue. And those who voted for him must shoulder the blame.

Click to expand...

I cited sources like the leftist Nation periodical attesting to what they claim that USAID has been more about political control than genuine assistance throughout its history. They conveniently agree with leftist propagandists of this thread though that aid cuts somehow create a humanitarian disaster yet somehow seem to perpetuate it when the money is spent.

The statistic models being used for how many people are supposed to have been saved by former USAID spending & suspect figures of deaths & projected deaths have been thankfully analyzed & challenged by New York University statistician Aaron Brown.







An attempted audit of USAID for fiscal year 2025 was unsuccessful.

What We Found​

• Williams Adley concluded that they were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion due to USAID’s failure to maintain adequate processes, controls, and records in support of financial transaction and account balances

Then there is the role of USAID in the dangerous gain of function research at your friendly neighborhood Wuhan labs.

Lukaris said:

I cited sources like the leftist Nation periodical attesting to what they claim that USAID has been more about political control than genuine assistance throughout its history.

Click to expand...

Gee, I thought I'd explained about 'soft power'. USAid is a double edged sword. It helps those in need and it puts forward the US as someone who wants to help. Someone who will aid you in your time of need. Someone who can be trusted. Someone that you can rely on. Well, that used to be the case. As the links I gave explained, there is now a political vacuum that will be filled by those countries that do not have your best interests at heart.

Lukaris said:

NYU professor challenges ‘patently absurd’ claim USAID cuts will kill 14 million | The College Fix

NYU Professor Aaron Brown criticized a UCLA study claiming that cuts to USAID could lead to 14 million additional deaths by 2030, calling the assertion ‘patently absurd.’…

www.thecollegefix.com

Click to expand...

You stop aid, as abruptly and as completely as this administration did and there will be deaths. There is absolutely zero doubt about that. But maybe you have a death toll that you would find acceptable. Maybe you could tell us what that figure is because I noticed that Brown didn't want to put one forward. But then, he didn't appear to be that interested. He wanted to make a political point. He wasn't interested in the humanitarian aspect of the matter.

Are you?

Lukaris said:

Then there is the role of USAID in the dangerous gain of function research at your friendly neighborhood Wuhan labs.

Click to expand...

The Conspiracy Department is just down the corridor. Second door on your right.

Lukaris said:

I cited sources like the leftist Nation periodical attesting to what they claim that USAID has been more about political control than genuine assistance throughout its history. They conveniently agree with leftist propagandists of this thread though that aid cuts somehow create a humanitarian disaster yet somehow seem to perpetuate it when the money is spent.

The statistic models being used for how many people are supposed to have been saved by former USAID spending & suspect figures of deaths & projected deaths have been thankfully analyzed & challenged by New York University statistician Aaron Brown.

NYU professor challenges ‘patently absurd’ claim USAID cuts will kill 14 million | The College Fix

NYU Professor Aaron Brown criticized a UCLA study claiming that cuts to USAID could lead to 14 million additional deaths by 2030, calling the assertion ‘patently absurd.’…

www.thecollegefix.com

Did USAID really save 90 million lives? Not unless it raised the dead.

A Lancet study’s inflated numbers are being used to push a partisan narrative, not inform public policy.

reason.com

An attempted audit of USAID for fiscal year 2025 was unsuccessful.

Audit of USAID’s Financial Statements for Fiscal Year 2025 | Office of Inspector General

oig.usaid.gov

What We Found​

• Williams Adley concluded that they were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion due to USAID’s failure to maintain adequate processes, controls, and records in support of financial transaction and account balances

Then there is the role of USAID in the dangerous gain of function research at your friendly neighborhood Wuhan labs.

State Department, USAID endorsed novel virus project with China despite national security risks

The State Dept. and USAID backed a controversial research project with China into novel viruses in 2019 even though it created new biosecurity risks.

usrtk.org

Click to expand...

One can almost hear the sneer in “leftist”; well done.

Bradskii said:

The Conspiracy Department is just down the corridor. Second door on your right.

Click to expand...

I’ll take the words of an American senator over as having more credibility than your opinion.

Lukaris said:

I’ll take the words of an American senator over as having more credibility than your opinion.

Click to expand...

By all means. Then you can give us what you think is an acceptable number of deaths which were caused by the abrupt termination of so many groups that were helping at the coal face but were immediately terminated. No need to be precise. A rough figure to the nearest ten thousand would do.

Bradskii said:

By all means. Then you can give us what you think is an acceptable number of deaths which were caused by the abrupt termination of so many groups that were helping at the coal face but were immediately terminated. No need to be precise. A rough figure to the nearest ten thousand would do.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think the cuts were wrong, have previously & continue to send what I can to relief agencies like Catholic Relief Services. Before God, not you, I will be judged as to a lack of wisdom in my politics.

I have provided ample info from the far left, like the Nation periodical, that often characterized USAID in more negative terms than Trump did when it fit their politics. Just because I question, what I think, are politicized statistics isn’t an attempt to find any acceptable death statistics. The abrupt shutdown was often reckless and disastrous but the so called future death projections ( & eagerly embracing them) is propaganda.

Rachel Bonnifield, of the Center for Global Development, in an interview ( October 2025) with the Carnegie Endowment, stated the difference between the seriousness of the short term cuts and lack of evidence to support reckless death projections:




articles arguing that hundreds of thousands perhaps have already died and millions, maybe up to 13 million people over the next five years, their lives could hang in the balance. What do you make of those figures?

Rachel Bonnifield: I would say those figures, they're helpful in an indicative sense. I would not take them too literally. There are many, many assumptions that go into those sorts of numbers, including, for example, how long the disruptions would last and whether any other aid or sources of financing, sources of support would come in to fill those gaps. And right now, we're not at a point where the data and evidence exists that we can go back and look forensically in a systematic way and come to any firm conclusions on that. We know people died as a result of this. This has been documented. But it's going to be quite a while before we're able to say with any confidence how many.



Your conspiracy theory brush off of actual seriously misdirected USAID funds for years of haphazard shipments of virus samples to Wuhan labs points to selective politics on your part.



It is interesting that the left seems to overlook certain political connections to China but is always ready to blame US Conservatives.

Lukaris said:

Personally, I think the cuts were wrong...

Click to expand...

Then I'm glad that we have a point of agreement. As regards the death toll...it's too hard to fix an exact figure. But it's beyond any doubt that people would die. The administration seemed not to consider it in any way. I can't understand that.

And as regards the politics...Well, I've given my view on that.