The End of an Era for American Influence
The signing of the “Rescissions Act of 2025” on July 24, 2025, is a major milestone in U.S. foreign policy, that will be studied for years as a case of self-inflicted strategic harm. The Act, which withdraws nearly $8 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other foreign aid programs, is much more than a budget cut. It is a definitive statement of America’s withdrawal from its post WWII position as a global leader in, and a principal builder of, the liberal international order. The consequences of this act have been severe and brutal. USAID, which was formerly a standalone government agency, has been merged with the State Department, more than 5,200 of its overseas contracts have been unilaterally terminated, and thousands of its development professionals have been laid off.
This has for the first time in over 70 years ruptured the bipartisan consensus of development assistance as a form of American statecraft that is crucial to creating and maintaining solid and stable allies, the promotion of democracy, and the protection of U.S. vital interests. By closing down its principal soft power agency the United States is creating a significant power vacuum in the Global South. That vacuum will not remain unexploited.
China and Russia have quickly become America’s foremost strategic competitors. Several other key developing countries now have to adjust their foreign relations, and as a result, will alter the geopolitical framework for decades.
The depth of the negative impact of this policy goes well beyond the suspended activities and cuts of billions of dollars. Its main negative impact is the loss and collapse of decades of built-up institutional capital. USAID and its implementing partners have, for a long time, constituted a huge reservoir of local knowledge, operational capabilities, and a web of trusted relationships at the local level. In many developing countries, USAID was the most responsive and flexible donor in relation to local conditions and was able to promote the development of local initiatives. The ability of this network of influence to “see” and shape events within a definable system is extraordinarily complex and cannot be rapidly rebuilt. Even an incoming administration that is committed to the return of funding would be facing extensive losses of confidence and human resources. This depletion would seal the tissue of America’s global leadership. This is the practical abdication of global leadership. This vacuum will be exploited by America’s rivals.
An Ideology of Retreat: Deconstructing the “America First” Doctrine
The dismantling of America’s development apparatus is based on an ideological conviction fundamentally at odds with America’s post-war commitment to internationalism. For America’s leadership, the dismantling of development assistance is not a strategic choice, but rather a “moral” and “fiscal” necessity to correct what is framed as decades of unproductive and mismanaged financing that promotes values contrary to America’s interest. This reasoning was amplified by the recently formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which categorized some of the country’s assistance expenditures as “waste and abuse” on which the country was owed a corrective moral justification. Among the expenditures characterizing America as a debtor was financing a $70,000 musical in Ireland on DEI, $2.5 million on electric cars in Vietnam, and financing “Green New Deal projects in developing countries” through the Clean Technology Fund.
The administration’s senior officials have documented the ideological framing of the carve-out with particular emphasis. Marco Rubio has defended the near complete erosion of USAID by declaring that USAID regards its constituency as the United Nations, multinational NGOs, and the global community, and not the U.S. taxpayers who supported its budget. He also alleged that USAID’s activities too often fostered anti-Americanism, such as woke activities, like programming on gender and climate, and that the agency also financially supported such entities as those aligned with the People’s Republic of China. This kind of rhetoric transforms foreign assistance, and not as a strategic investment, but as a cost that goes against the United States’ self-proclaimed values and self-determination.
The magnitude of the cuts embodies such an ideological deficit. These cuts are not only aimed at Development Assistance but also the Democracy Fund, International Peacekeeping Activities, the Complex Crises Fund, as well as, regional entities such as the Inter-American Foundation and the African Development Foundation of the United States.
The Competitors’ Advance: Filling the Vacuum
The United States pull-back has created a geopolitical shift which has been received favourably by China and Russia. The two states are forming new geopolitical partnerships and are formulating rival models to the disrupted world order. As China and Russia reconfigure and develop a new form of engagement, the United States is inertly focused and dismantling partnerships of importance.
China’s Uncontested Development Offer
Given the failure of the United States’ development models, for most of the Global South, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is now a default option. Rapid, large-scale investment in ports, rail, and telecommunications, which is the infrastructure that most of the developing countries need, is offered to them by Beijing without the human rights, transparency, and environmental conditions that the West imposes. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the BRI has allowed China to become South America’s and the region’s dominant economic force in all trade. China’s target is no longer just raw materials but also the ‘new infrastructures’ of 5G and electric vehicles. Since 2020, China’s investment of 3 out of 4 dollars in the Global South is a legitimate foundation of China’s growing power.
However, this partnership in primarily unregulated debt is also a double-edged sword for the countries involved, giving rise to the phenomenon of ‘buyer’s remorse’. Unregulated debt, trade balance deterioration due to penetration of subsidized Chinese imports, and the unhealthy ecosystem of corruption due to a lack of transparency in the systems of debt, all pose real concerns to countries of the Global South dealing with Chinese partners. From anti-dumping legislation in South Africa and Brazil, the world can see the growing fear of the negative consequences of this Chinese Engagement.
Nonetheless, the core strategic reality is still the same as these frictions: as the United States opts out of all-encompassing developmental alternative, a problematic and arguably predatory Chinese offer is, to many, better than no offer at all.
Russia’s Disruption Playbook
As China builds, Russia destroys. In the Global South, Moscow’s strategy is less about long term development and more about instability exploitation, supporting, and keeping friendly autocrats, and using asymmetric means to bypass the West. This is especially prominent in Africa, where the Kremlin’s Africa Corps, the state-controlled successor to the Wagner Group, is expanding its “military-business model.” In countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and the Central African Republic, Russian mercenaries offer and secure lucrative mining and resources contracts and regime combat support and security, as well as a cover for leaders to deny the presence of foreign troops. Russia’s blunt force combat strategy is a more attractive option to the fragile African autocrats strengthened by the U.S. withdrawal from governance and stabilization programs.
A key element of this strategy is the sophisticated and deeply effective disinformation strategy. Russia has become the foremost sponsor of disinformation in Africa, having sponsored at least 80 disinformation campaigns in 22 countries. However, these campaigns are more than just propaganda. Apart from supporting the Kremlin in ongoing conflicts, these campaigns are focused on amplifying local grievances and discontent towards former colonial powers, rebranding Russia as a defender of the oppressed, and silencing anti-American discourse. This disinformation strategy is extensive and expanding.
As Russia expands its media influence in Latin America in a purported effort to defend a “multipolar world”, Moscow seeks to build “anti-American” sentiment with Sputnik’s new 24/7 broadcasting in Brazil and RT tv programs on Chilean national television. Moscow’s media expansion in Latin America is underscored by RT broadcasting in Chile and Sputnik’s 24/7 streaming from Brazil.
For the Global South, together Russia and China gift a multifaceted authoritarian model. Participating in the Digital Silk Road and the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) guarantees a country economic integration and prosperity. Politically, stability comes from a security collaboration with Russia’s Africa Corps. Previously, the U.S. could provide such an integrated “development-diplomacy-defence” arc, but with a commitment to democratic and liberal values. By refusing to provide such a package, Washington is forcing countries to deconstruct their strategic requirements, unbundle them, and source them elsewhere. The outcome is a geopolitical marketplace where Russian hard power and Chinese economic leverage strengthen each other and create new zones of influence that are inhospitable to American interests.
The View from the South – A World of Hedged Bets and Strategic Autonomy
The primary states within the Global South are participating in this contest, and they are not passive actors. For these countries the U.S. abdication is a trigger that is intensifying the quest for ‘strategic autonomy’ and is compelling them to diversify in a world in which Washington is no longer the sole dominant power, but rather one of many significant poles.
India’s Wary Pivot
The new U.S. policy presents a sharp paradox for its Indo-Pacific strategy: an approach ostensibly designed to counter China is actively undermining the key partnerships needed to achieve that goal. For India, a strong and reliable United States has been an indispensable partner in balancing Chinese aggression on its border and in the wider region. An unpredictable and transactional Washington, however- one that imposes tariffs and publicly criticizes its partners- erodes the trust that underpins this strategic relationship. Consequently, New Delhi has been forced to recalibrate. Recent months have seen a flurry of high-level diplomatic engagements between India and China, suggesting a pragmatic shift toward prioritizing regional stability and de-escalation over rigid alignment with an unreliable American partner. While India continues to deepen defence cooperation with the U.S., its leaders are simultaneously pursuing a more flexible foreign policy to avoid being caught in a great power conflict where its primary partner cannot be counted on.
South Africa’s Multipolar Moment
Pretoria has engaged in policies of Mult-alignment wherein they do not engage in great power alignment rivalries. The U.S. withdrawal has brought additional support to their position, and this further strengthens South Africa’s conviction that its interests are best served by not picking a side and by keeping a strong political alignment with its partners in the Global South, and in particular, the BRICS. South Africa has faced severe criticism from the West with regards to the military drills it has with Russia and China, as well as its stance of neutrality in the Ukraine war. Nevertheless, South Africa has maintained its position. For Pretoria, BRICS is a vital platform for promoting a more equitable, multipolar world order where the voices of developing nations, and particularly African interests, are given weight. The U.S. abdication only deepens this conviction.
The strategic retreat by the United States, then, is more than creating a power vacuum. It is a strong impetus for shaping a post-American institutional order. The actions of India, and South Africa are not simply reactive responses to an evolving geopolitical order, they are more than that.
They are coordinated and intentional actions aimed at constructing a more resilient, multipolar system, further ingraining their institutions, such as an enlarged BRICS, and solidifying their customs in foreign policy, such as strategic autonomy. The partnership with the world’s leading power in the past and the tangible benefits that come with such relationships including capital, advanced technologies, security arrangements, and market access- tempered such ambitions predominantly. Having removed that incentive, the U.S. is freeing the very forces it tried to control, speeding the coming of a world where its hegemony is materially undermined.
Conclusion – The High Price of Abdication
The “America First” polices, like the disbandment of USAID, represent the strategic retrenchment of the country, and rest upon a fundamental misapprehension of the character of power and influence in the 21st century. Framed as a wise step to conserve taxpayer dollars and remove difficulties abroad, it is, however, a deeply erroneous strategic mistake of an incredibly expensive nature. This is a case of unilateral disarmament of the nation’s soft power and partnership-building assets, resulting, not in a genuinely stronger and more respected America, but in its strategic marginalization.
The U.S. is not losing the ability to develop tools to defend itself and losing the ability to defend itself, it losing the ability to defend itself diplomatically. Losing one’s ‘network power’ descends to isolationism and self-imprisonment. In the international arena, power is no longer exerted solely through military and/or economically oppressive means. In walking away from its partners in the Global South, the U.S. is choosing to be less influential and, ultimately, less secure.
The emerging world order will be more fragmented, more contested, and less governed by the liberal, rules-based norms that the United States once championed and defended. It will be a world where transactional relationships and authoritarian spheres of influence become increasingly common, and where the principles of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are in steady retreat. The great abdication comes at a high price. The critical question for the future is whether the trust, expertise, and influence now being so rapidly squandered can ever be fully recovered, or if the United States has permanently diminished its own standing, leaving itself and its allies to navigate a far more dangerous and hostile world.
