In a rare public alignment, two former presidents of the United States—George W. Bush and Barack Obama—recently appeared together to express concern over the sweeping restructuring of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Joined by musician and humanitarian advocate Bono, the former leaders praised the agency’s longtime employees and reflected on the broader role that foreign assistance has played in shaping America’s global standing.
The moment stood out not only because of the bipartisan nature of the message, but also because of the broader debate it has reignited: What role should the United States play in global humanitarian efforts, and how should those efforts be managed in an era of changing political priorities?
A Bipartisan Moment in a Polarized Era
American politics has grown increasingly divided over the past decade, making moments of public agreement between leaders from different parties uncommon. George W. Bush, a Republican, and Barack Obama, a Democrat, governed during different eras and often held contrasting policy views. Yet both administrations supported large-scale global health and development initiatives, many of them carried out through USAID.
Their joint appearance, released through a recorded video message, was framed as a message of appreciation for USAID personnel whose positions were affected by recent government changes. Rather than focusing on partisan disagreements, both former presidents emphasized shared values: compassion, long-term strategy, and international cooperation.
Recognizing Decades of Humanitarian Work
Central to the discussion was the agency’s involvement in global health, particularly in Africa. USAID, often working alongside other U.S. government programs, has supported efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and other life-threatening diseases.
George W. Bush highlighted the human impact of these initiatives, noting that millions of people who once faced limited access to treatment are alive today because of sustained international support. During his presidency, Bush launched the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which became one of the largest public health programs aimed at a single disease in history.
Addressing former and current USAID staff, Bush spoke about the importance of service and the idea that helping others abroad can also align with national interests at home. His remarks reflected a long-standing view that humanitarian engagement can strengthen diplomatic relationships and promote global stability.
Obama’s Perspective on Global Development
Barack Obama followed with his own reflections, emphasizing continuity rather than contrast between administrations. During his time in office, Obama expanded several global development initiatives, including programs related to education, food security, and women’s health. He argued that development assistance is not only about providing resources, but about empowering communities to build sustainable futures.
In his remarks, Obama expressed concern that dismantling or significantly reducing long-standing aid structures could undermine years of progress. He framed development work as an investment rather than a cost, suggesting that long-term benefits often outweigh short-term savings.
While his language was firm, it remained focused on policy outcomes rather than personal criticism. Obama emphasized that aid workers often operate far from the spotlight and that their contributions are frequently underappreciated until they are gone.
The Role of USAID in U.S. Foreign Policy
Founded in 1961, USAID has served as the primary civilian agency responsible for administering U.S. foreign assistance. Its mission has included promoting economic development, improving health outcomes, responding to humanitarian crises, and supporting democratic institutions.
Over the decades, USAID has worked in partnership with local governments, non-governmental organizations, and international institutions. Its projects have ranged from emergency disaster relief to long-term agricultural development and education reform.
Supporters of the agency argue that such efforts contribute to global stability and help prevent crises that could later require military or emergency intervention. Critics, however, have long questioned the efficiency, oversight, and measurable outcomes of some programs.
Recent Government Changes and Administrative Shifts
Earlier this year, the Trump administration announced a major reorganization of U.S. foreign assistance operations. Under the new framework, many of USAID’s functions were transferred directly to the Department of State. Officials stated that the goal was to streamline operations, reduce redundancy, and improve accountability.
Only a limited number of USAID staff remain in place as the transition continues, with oversight of aid programs now falling more directly under the Secretary of State. According to administration officials, this change reflects a broader effort to align foreign assistance more closely with national policy objectives.
The restructuring followed months of debate within government circles about the size, scope, and effectiveness of federal agencies. USAID was among several institutions reviewed as part of a broader initiative aimed at reducing government complexity.
Differing Views on Efficiency and Impact
Supporters of the reorganization argue that consolidating foreign aid under the State Department will lead to clearer leadership and improved coordination. They contend that foreign assistance should be directly tied to diplomatic goals and subject to rigorous evaluation.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who now oversees the consolidated programs, has stated that the new structure will focus on results, transparency, and strategic alignment. According to him, the intention is not to abandon international engagement, but to manage it more effectively.
From this perspective, the restructuring is framed as a modernization effort—one designed to ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and that aid programs support broader foreign policy goals.
Criticism and Concerns from the Aid Community
Despite these assurances, many former USAID officials and international development experts have expressed concern about the long-term consequences of the changes. They argue that USAID’s specialized expertise, built over decades, may be difficult to replicate within a more centralized diplomatic structure.
Critics also worry that development and humanitarian goals could become secondary to short-term political considerations. Unlike diplomatic negotiations, development programs often require years of sustained engagement before results become visible.
Aid professionals have pointed out that many USAID initiatives produced measurable outcomes, such as reductions in disease prevalence, increased school enrollment, and improved access to clean water. They caution that dismantling established systems could disrupt these gains.
The Human Element Behind Policy Decisions
Beyond institutional debates, the changes have had a personal impact on agency employees. Many staff members dedicated their careers to international service, often working in challenging environments far from home.
Reports from within the agency describe a period of uncertainty and declining morale leading up to the restructuring. For some employees, the end of USAID as they knew it represented not just a career shift, but the loss of a mission-driven community.
In this context, Bush and Obama’s public acknowledgment was seen by many as a gesture of respect toward individuals whose work often goes unnoticed.
Bono’s Perspective on Humanitarian Values
Bono, known for decades of advocacy on issues such as global poverty and disease prevention, added a cultural and moral dimension to the discussion. Having worked with multiple U.S. administrations, he described USAID staff as quiet contributors whose impact is felt most strongly in the communities they serve.
Rather than focusing on political disagreements, Bono emphasized values such as generosity, empathy, and shared humanity. He argued that America’s influence has historically come not only from its economic and military strength, but also from its willingness to assist others in times of need.
Global Implications of Reduced Engagement
Experts in international relations have noted that changes to U.S. aid policy can have ripple effects beyond immediate budget considerations. In regions facing instability, humanitarian and development programs often help address underlying causes of conflict, such as poverty, lack of education, and health crises.
Some analysts warn that a reduced U.S. presence in development work could create opportunities for other global powers to expand their influence. Countries such as China and Russia have increased their involvement in infrastructure and aid projects in recent years, often tying assistance to strategic objectives.
From this viewpoint, development aid is not solely altruistic—it also plays a role in shaping geopolitical relationships.
Arguments from Supporters of the Restructuring
Those who favor the changes counter that U.S. foreign assistance must evolve with the times. They argue that previous models were sometimes too fragmented, leading to overlapping projects and unclear accountability.
Supporters also emphasize the importance of ensuring that aid programs deliver tangible benefits and align with the interests of American citizens. They point to instances where projects failed to meet goals or lacked transparency as evidence that reform was necessary.
In this narrative, consolidation is portrayed as a way to preserve what works while eliminating inefficiencies.
A Shared Philosophy Despite Political Differences
What made the joint appearance by Bush and Obama notable was not simply their criticism of policy changes, but the philosophy underlying their remarks. Both leaders framed humanitarian aid as a strategic tool rather than an act of charity alone.
They emphasized that addressing global challenges—such as disease outbreaks, food insecurity, and natural disasters—can reduce risks that eventually affect the United States. In their view, compassion and national interest are not mutually exclusive.
This framing reflects a broader school of thought in foreign policy that views development assistance as a preventative measure.
The Legacy of USAID’s Work
Over more than six decades, USAID has been involved in projects that reshaped communities around the world. These include building hospitals and schools, training healthcare workers and teachers, supporting farmers, and responding to natural disasters.
While not every program succeeded, the cumulative impact has been significant. Millions of people gained access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunities through initiatives supported by U.S. aid.
Former agency leaders argue that these outcomes represent a form of soft power—one that builds goodwill and strengthens alliances over time.
What Comes Next for U.S. Foreign Assistance
As the transition continues, much remains uncertain about how foreign aid will function under its new structure. Questions remain about staffing, funding priorities, and long-term strategy.
Some observers hope that elements of USAID’s culture and expertise will be preserved within the State Department framework. Others remain skeptical, fearing that development work may receive less attention amid competing diplomatic demands.
The ultimate impact will likely depend on how future administrations choose to approach global engagement.
A Broader Conversation About National Identity
At its core, the debate over USAID reflects a deeper question about how the United States sees itself in the world. Is leadership defined primarily by economic and military power, or does it also include a responsibility to assist those facing hardship?
Bush and Obama, despite their differences, offered a shared answer: that America’s strength has long been tied to its willingness to lead through example.
Their joint message served as a reminder that certain values—service, empathy, and cooperation—have historically crossed party lines.
Conclusion: Beyond Politics
The restructuring of USAID marks a significant moment in the evolution of U.S. foreign assistance. Supporters see an opportunity for reform and efficiency, while critics fear the loss of hard-won progress and institutional knowledge.
Amid this debate, the unified voices of two former presidents highlighted the human impact of policy decisions. Their remarks were less about partisan disagreement and more about preserving a vision of leadership rooted in both pragmatism and compassion.
As the United States redefines its approach to global engagement, the legacy of USAID—and the people who carried out its mission—will continue to shape discussions about what it means to lead in an interconnected world.
Whether through new structures or renewed commitments, the challenge ahead lies in balancing accountability with empathy, and strategy with service—an equilibrium that has long defined America’s role on the global stage.