How to Tank Your National Image in Four Weeks
Donald Trump at the World Economic Forum with European Commission Ursula von der Leyen on January 21, 2020. Photo courtesy of the White House and Wikimedia.
The accelerating moral decline of our nation has given way to a grim reality: American values are now on life support. The person responsible—sitting contently in the Oval Office—is going to unabashedly continue to ruin the country’s international standing in pursuit of an America-first policy that hurts all involved. Personally, I find myself frequently embarrassed to self-identify as an “American” knowing that scores of politicians and parliamentarians abroad are probably thinking to themselves “What the hell are they doing over there?”
Only a week ago, the slashing of federal funding signaled rapid losses to vital housing subsidies and early education programs. Despite the temporary freeze issued by a federal judge, uncertainty reigns as universities, nonprofits, and government employees try desperately to pivot. For onlookers, the absurdity of this self-inflicted political predicament is apparent. On February 3, however, the status of America’s bedrock principles made their final transition from precarious to end-stage when the White House issued a statement condemning the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Since then, the Trump administration has begun firing nearly 98 percent of USAID workers and is trying to completely close the agency by February 7. The move shows America abandoning the action-driven systems for effecting real change in the world and faltering in its moral standing among its international peers.
The “uncategorized” announcement identifies how “waste and abuse run deep” at USAID but lacks any supporting evidence to make these claims credible. The first five bullet points draw from the same article in the Daily Mail, a UK-based tabloid newspaper that sensationalizes stories for shock value. The other pieces the White House references are dated between June 2018 and January 2025, offering not a single piece of historical precedent as corroboration. It reads as hastily organized, poor argumentation that undercuts the very narrative that the Trump administration is trying to push. It is not surprising that the Trump administration would deploy surface-level accounts and a far-right tabloid (a generous characterization of the Daily Mail) to bolster their claims. Reporters and historians debunked a staggering number of Trump’s claims from his first term: During the 2024 presidential debate, The Washington Post determined that a majority of his points were either “suspect” or false. The pernicious lies peddled by these articles and espoused by the White House underscore the psychosis running deep in the Trump administration. This psychosis discredits America’s national agenda but also reveals something far more sinister. Our president is eliminating USAID based on falsehoods in order to devise a reality where his other witch hunts are justified. By painting federal programs as vessels for widespread corruption, Trump can eliminate more initiatives that he dislikes by grouping them with USAID and treating them as a common “enemy” of his platform.
Stripping away USAID from the ground up, coupled with potential congressional legislation that would abolish the agency, puts America’s international standing in permanent crisis. The U.S. routinely relies on its political statements and actions—in equal measure—to relay its integrity and moral character to an international audience. Words help establish a leader’s credibility, but the actions of a nation are what define its character. Abolishing USAID and putting some of their most pressing social benefit projects at risk compromises America’s ability to convey its moral rectitude. It turns the functioning of America’s foreign policy into a business, driven by efficiency and bottom lines rather than being in service of others. America’s ability to cooperate to solve international issues—operationalized by USAID—is no longer part of our foreign policy calculus; our integrity will be measured by Trump’s personal gains rather than his ability to put people over profit.
To demonstrate what I mean, consider the scope of the White House’s statement within the larger timeline of American politics. You could also reasonably argue that the Trump administration sourced articles from the end of his first presidency and during Biden’s tenure to pin USAID’s alleged wrongdoing on his opponents. However, President John F. Kennedy established USAID in 1961, so even if all the claims in the White House statement were true, they would account for a little over 10% of USAID’s operational history. Now, take a look at the dollar amounts listed in the release: they account for just over $12 million recorded since the earliest article from 2018. This number comprises just 0.016% of USAID’s entire operating budget of $78 billion from fiscal year 2023. To put that into perspective, 0.016% of the height of Mount Everest (29,029 feet) totals just under five feet. Claiming that 10% of USAID’s operational history and 0.016% of its budget should be the cause for its closure is beyond the scope of reasonable comprehension.
A great many people within the U.S. are trying hard to push back against this unfolding narrative. A federal judge recently paused the buyout program from the White House that would trade resignations for monetary incentives and force nearly 60,000 people to leave the government workforce. Many nonprofits and activist groups have launched a slew of legal challenges to halt Trump’s so-called governmental reforms. But the overwhelming complicity of other politicians—mostly GOP senators—leaves little room for the nation to course correct its plummeting international credibility.
Readers might dismiss the accuracy of my claims in support of USAID, and to some degree, their skepticism is justified. Since its founding in 1961, USAID has garnered criticism from both the left and right. Conservatives denounce the large amounts of funding funneled into the agency with little substantial benefit returning to taxpayers who help finance its agenda. Left-leaning critics have argued that USAID’s motivations stem more from imperialism and anti-communism than from an earnest desire to alleviate poverty. Regardless, the numbers speak an astonishing truth to these assertions. Since its founding, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has underpinned USAID’s HIV/AIDs relief programs. The program reduced HIV/AIDS-related deaths by over 68 percent globally over the last two decades. Funding cuts to USAID endanger nearly 25 million people and over 500,000 children through other similar programs. The numerous countries around the world today that face acute international humanitarian emergencies are now collateral damage to Trump’s efficiency agenda.
This all highlights the rapid dismantling of the action-driven mechanisms that support America’s international image. With few internationally beneficial programs to point to, the Trump administration will find it hard to justify to other nations and their constituents why America is as great as he claims he is making it. Political infighting, social strife, and economic uncertainty show a nation on the precipice of total fallout. I argue that it would be hard for even a seasoned Republican to give solid evidence of America’s upward trajectory since January 20. Instead, the tidal wave of venomous executive decisions attacking transgender rights and DEI protections flood the public consciousness with an image not of America’s greatness, but its retreat into obscenity. International audiences watch as worldwide programs that tackle pressing global issues vanish before their eyes. In their place, virulent domestic changes and international policies take hold. And no amount of posturing or manipulation could transform these cuts into second-hand benefits now that the White House is well past the point of no return. The administration cannot simultaneously project American dominance abroad while systematically dismantling the very programs that procured that influence. For someone with such an appetite for viciousness, try as he might, Trump simply cannot have his cake and eat it too.
Ishaan Barrett (CC ‘26) is a junior studying urban studies, political science, and Arabic language and culture. His previous writing has been featured in URBAN Magazine at Columbia GSAPP, the Harvard Urban Review, the Barnard-Columbia Urban Review, the Columbia Policy Journal, and the Columbia Daily Spectator. He can be reached at i.barrett@columbia.edu.
Edited by Henry Michaelson (CC ‘25) and Lukas Roybal (CC’ 27).