Robert Gamer: Author & Activist

Millions of impoverished people worldwide have relied on U.S. food and medical aid for decades. However, this vital support is now at risk of vanishing due to executive orders and actions by President Donald Trump, which have dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Billionaire Elon Musk, who holds no official government position but remains one of Trump’s closest advisors, recently boasted that he had “spent this weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” If true, the consequences of gutting USAID will be catastrophic.

Without food and medicine, widespread starvation and preventable disease will claim the lives of the world’s most vulnerable—children and the elderly. Experts estimate that tens of thousands could die as a result of this decision.

Beyond humanitarian concerns, USAID has long played a crucial role in fostering global stability and goodwill toward the U.S. American aid helped rebuild Germany and Japan after World War II, laying the foundation for their transformation into two of America’s strongest allies. What message does it send when the U.S. abruptly withdraws its helping hand?

The economic justification for freezing USAID funding is also deeply flawed. The agency supported thousands of American jobs, a number expected to shrink significantly due to these cuts. The ripple effect extends to U.S. farmers, airline carriers, furniture manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies—sectors that rely on USAID contracts. Existing rules already mandate that USAID procure goods such as vehicles, food, plane tickets, and medications from American suppliers, meaning the agency directly benefits the domestic economy.

By legal definition, an accessory to a crime is someone who, while not directly committing the act, facilitates or enables it. Consider a six-year-old child in the Democratic Republic of Congo who contracts malaria—a disease easily treatable with doxycycline. With USAID shuttered, access to this life-saving drug vanishes. Now multiply this tragedy across countless communities in underdeveloped regions, and the death toll becomes staggering.

In light of these facts, can Trump and Musk be considered accessories to a crime against humanity? Their actions—or inaction—may be responsible for avoidable mass death. History will judge whether this decision was a case of misplaced priorities or something far more sinister.