There’s a fair bit of ignorance on aid in this thread. I can’t comment on long term development programmes which do have much more political aims and strings attached but humanitarian aid is a different thing entirely. And the idea American humanitarian funding isn’t beneficial or liked in places it’s spent is ridiculous
The US are the biggest donors in emergencies and it is spent/ used by organisations USAID give it to with the humanitarian mandate in use (neutrality, impartiality and independence). Now the US will be selective in where money goes to a degree (see Ukraine) but the US spends millions keeping people alive from DRC, Mali and north east Nigeria to Gaza, Yemen and Syria. Now we can always dig deep and say ‘well America is the source of the problem’ but the humanitarian mandate doesn’t give a shyt about that. Its role is to help people stay alive and hopefully move back to normality. And this isn’t a sort of nice to have. I’ve worked my entire adult life in the humanitarian sector and when money dries up people die. So yeh US not providing UN funds to provide food in South Sudan or give money to an INGO to keep clean water running in Gaza, that has massive impact on families ability to live.
At the macro level sure there’s political reasons for the purpose of USAID but although it’s a fukked up system where western states keep refugees and displaced people alive, currently in the present system if the money stops, the clean water stops, the food stops. Shutting down USAID will have major repercussions.