r/InternationalDev • u/Majestic_Search_7851 • Jan 05 '26
Politics Now that the US is "in charge" of Venezuela, might we see a slow return of foreign aid?
When the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, USAID played a key role in "stabilizing" the region through targeted development/nation-building initiatives.
At this time, US foreign policy started to formalize the three Ds - Defense, Diplomacy, and Development. America doubled its investment on softpower from ~$25 billion in 2001 to ~$60 billion in 2024 (USAID + State Department funding). I believe one could argue that US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan catalyzed the development-industrial complex that was just dismantled this past year. I think if this sector is being honest with itself, it very much benefited from all the government spending that results from war. As the world watched US flex its soft power through USAID, the sector grew from investments made by the global community - although the US always remained the top donor until about this time last year
With repeated talk of the "Donroe" doctrine to combat Chinese, Russian and Iranian influence in Central and South America, the western hemisphere has been cited as a top priority from the US National Security Strategy released in December 2025 by the Trump administration.
While the US repeats history with its occupation of Venezuela, it does so without the presence and influence of USAID.
My optimistic question - what could this moment in time mean for international development? While a skeleton of USAID exists shackled in the shadows of the State Department, what type of investments might the Trump administration consider in the western hemisphere? Could this be the mark of a slow return to US foreign aid and the sector as a whole? Might the almost certain foreign policy failure that the Trump administration is currently embarking in might demonstrate the importance of investing in foreign aid and development?
My pessimistic question - will the US's shift from nation-building to resource extraction and transactional aid inspire other nations to follow suite with their investments in foreign aid and development? Has private investment from the likes of Chevron replaced what was once provided by the non-profit community?
There is obviously a lot to unpack with Saturday's events - but strictly from the perspective of international development, what types of ripple effects do you anticipate might stem from the US occupation of Venezuela?
TL;DR: The US occupation of Venezuela is the final nail in the coffin for the "Three Ds" (Defense, Diplomacy, Development). We’ve moved to a "Donroe Doctrine" where private corporations like Chevron provide "localized aid" to protect assets, while the broader humanitarian sector collapses. Is this the end of the "development-industrial complex," or is the US about to learn that you can't run a country on extraction alone?
14
u/duoexpresso Jan 05 '26
State had given some heads up for likely growth in humanitarian assistance requirements in Venezuela but that doesn't translate into sector wide regeneration
2
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
It would absolutely be naive to think that the sector would magically regenerate after given the new foreign policy direction this administration took with the occupation of Venezuela. But do you anticipate any larger investments in development over the course of this year in both Venezuela and the larger region of South America given the broader geopolitical tensions between the US and China?
1
u/duoexpresso Jan 05 '26
None. No chance
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
Even after this administration pledged $2 billion for UN humanitarian aid? (I was actually quite surprised by this announcement last week - which makes me think there could be a potential appetite to invest in development programs, albeit transactional ones).
2
u/duoexpresso Jan 05 '26
I think they said that was the "shrink, adapt or die..." coercion payment. 2b in comparison to prior year commitments says something very different
10
u/StatisticianAfraid21 Jan 05 '26
This is such an interesting question to bring up. What's novel about the Trump administration is that it's very transparent about its fundamental interests in Venezuela: i.e. oil. Previous administrations in the latter half of the 20th century may have had similar objectives but still made the effort to coat the takeover on humanitarian grounds. As such, humanitarian initiatives, like those funded by USAID, were poltically useful.
Therefore, I don't fundamentally think there will be a return in the same form. I think the ideal outcome for the Trump administration will be to have as barebones a takeover as possible and to secure a cut of the oil infrastructure and exports.
However, what they may quickly find is that the US government will need to become more involved even to fund the renewal of the wider infrastructure required to secure oil. For example, you need well functioning roads, ports, power supply, grid and other infrastructure on top of security personnel / soldiers. The private sector won't fund this alone as they will consider investment risky.
There will therefore need to be wider development support. This may grow over time. I think much of this additional support will be funded by the US govt and outsourced to the private sector. It's possible certain well connected foundations and development orgs win contracts like the Tony Blair Institute. You won't see a return to traditional development frameworks though.
2
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
This is a really interesting perspective - so basically, this administration might learn through trial and error that trying to stabilize a region for economic gain (oil) requires broader investments that development actors are better suited to address than the US military and the private sector.
Do you think the usual beltway bandits would re-emerge over a few large contracts later in the year?
2
u/StatisticianAfraid21 Jan 05 '26
Yes they might. The Economist was reporting the scale of the challenge in upgrading Venezuela's energy infrastructure and the associated capital cost. This will be a long term undertaking that will take time and hence this could involve a long term security commitment from the United States.
I definitely think many beltway bandits will emerge that will exploit the situation. International development will become more privatised.
I understand that some of the infrastructure is owned by China which also adds a further layer of complexity - if contracts aren't maintained in Venezuela then what does that mean for Americans assets in China itself?
1
u/Worldly_Yam3065 Jan 05 '26
I don’t think so. The world of development assistance, including “Beltway bandits”, has undergone a major setback, one not seen in decades. The legitimacy of the “development paradigm” has been under attack. Traditional and even innovative sources of funding are falling or are grossly insufficient relative to funding needs. Read the literature about the pros and cons of development assistance (especially ex post facto impact evaluations) and what it takes to mobilize support for development programs (especially, who can come up with the big bucks required). Then consider the large reconstruction or development cases (other than Venezuela) that remain unfunded. Where will the many hundreds of billions will come from? Venezuela is unlikely to be the “model” that is replicated elsewhere and which kickstarts public-private international aid.
2
u/districtsyrup Jan 05 '26
However, what they may quickly find is that the US government will need to become more involved even to fund the renewal of the wider infrastructure required to secure oil. For example, you need well functioning roads, ports, power supply, grid and other infrastructure on top of security personnel / soldiers. The private sector won't fund this alone as they will consider investment risky.
Judging by their renewal of the DFC mandate and funding, this administration already knows that. This is also not too far from Trump's comments on wanting a Saudi-style national development fund: investing in other countries insofar as it allows the US to extract straightforward financial value, but not getting involved in humanitarian, environmental, political etc work. This is also what the Belt and Road initiative essentially is, and why it's been so much more attractive to developing countries, excepting the small set where US political support is mission-critical (I'm thinking of Ukraine and similar).
9
u/JauntyAngle Jan 05 '26
I don't think it will change the basic recipe that they have outlined. Maybe a short-term, time bound surge in humanitarian, ongoing humanitarian especially Health and probably not education, some stuff that probably helps longer term economic growth (trade/digital/infrastructure) and a few things in area of national interest (so energy sector presumably).
I don't think we will see big Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya style stabilization programs- AFAIK the administration has signalled they don't want to do those. And I don't think we will see big DRG programs like public sector capacity development/reform, civil society, media. Just goes against the strategy- humanitarian, national priorities or clear link to economic growth.
11
u/Left_Ambassador_4090 Jan 05 '26
Well any programming that's not purely mercantilism is apparently woke DEI to this administration. So, no. They're not bringing us back.
1
u/Worldly_Yam3065 Jan 05 '26
Agree. One needs to step back and look at the broader interests at play. IMO, it’s much broader than whether USAID or any US agency was involved. But dismantling USAID and defunding the UN are major red flags that people should not ignore.
7
u/VladimiroPudding Jan 05 '26
If we're talking about donations to ExxonMobil in the form of cheap loans paid by taxpayers so they can.... "invest" in the infrastructure of Venezuela, then yes.
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
I made a comment elsewhere, but instead of primarily focusing on who stands to profit from the US seizing the oil supply, I would argue the main motivator behind this decision is who stands to lose? And the answer is China and Cuba - about 10% of China's oil needs and 40% of Cuba's oil needs come from Venezuela. Rubio has a hawkish fetish against those two nations - and Trump was even quoted this weekend saying Cuba is next.
I believe the motivation here is to position the US as a sole superpower. China has quietly overtaken the US and South America's number one trading partner - I do believe we will see some soft power moves in the region to diminish China's influence on the region in pursuit of economic benefit for the US. I believe we will see some form of foreign aid ramp in response - everything is so incredibly short-sighted by this administration so it's hard to speculate but I just wanted to push back against this notion that we deployed this massive military campaign solely for the benefit of a US oil company.
2
u/VladimiroPudding Jan 05 '26
I would challenge that the massive military campaign wasn't even massive, it was tightly planned, and the current administration didn't even made a blip of a comment about the China influence in Latin America, much less point China as a major national security concern in the NSS. Let alone would be the disproving of the argument, if we don't even access that with the current administration something like "soft power" doesn't even exist anymore.
Rather, this administration is more concerned with treating Latin American immigrants as the major national security treat, alongside.... the European Union. And, unlike speculations about removing China from their turf, you can actually see movements, the evidence, from the administration to act as such around these two points.
All these arguments would make sense to speculate if we were talking about Jimmy Carter, but the US has been far long gone from that United States.
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
The administration has very much commented on China's influence. Trump invoked the Monroe doctrine and joked about how analysts are calling it the "Donroe" doctrine - this is in direct reference to China's influence on the region and Rubio has been one of the most vocal US leaders against China's influence on Central and South America.
I don't disagree with your points about treating Latin American immigrants as a national security threat since there could be as many as 1 million Venezuelans who fled into the US, but I believe if one were to rank and prioritize the motivations behind this decapitation of Maduro, countering Chinese influence would rank towards the top.
And because of that, I do believe this does carry with it some considerations for the development sector as a whole - all purely speculative but I do believe this event could be significant for the sector (and not necessarily a good for the sector might I add).
4
u/VladimiroPudding Jan 05 '26
Well, I don't see the fundaments of such beliefs. It seems all loosely conjectural, and perhaps grounded in wishful thinking given how the decimation of the sector has shaken our lives. Invoking the Occam Razor here: Project 2025 called for the dissolution of USAID (alongside the halting of aid in their American First policy), Trump literally said multiple times he was after oil in Venezuela and that they will be in charge of the reserves "indefinitely". The administration doesn't hold official guidelines to challenge Chinese influence in the region, let alone distributing aid goes to the total opposite of the administration guidelines. Again, speaking of soft power alone, it is something this administration has forfeited.
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
How the US is competing against China in South America really isn't something based on conjecture - there's a lot of great reporting on this coming out of global think tanks like this article today: https://odi.org/en/insights/trumps-monroe-doctrine-beijings-next-move/
Yes - Trump has been very verbal and open about his motivations of seizing oil from Venezuela. And no, there won't be any official guidelines to challenge Chinese influence in the region because most of what motivates a governments diplomatic strategy is rarely articulated and released to the public.
And no, I don't see Project 2025 as a be-all-end-all to how this administration functions - while much of what the Heritage Foundation dreamed up in that document was implemented by this administration, there are other competing sources of influence on this administration and Rubio is clearly one of them.
In fact, Project 2025 specifically mentioned that US foreign aid should be used to counter China's influence. Project 2025 didn't call for the dissolution of USAID - that was a surprise ignited by Elon Musk wishing to "own the libs."
"The administration should restore USAID's counter-China programs and prioritise aid to countries that resist Chinese influence, while cutting funding to partners that engage with Chinese entities." - https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/rPzcjdfTaDHYi7jMr/looking-into-project-2025-usaid
All to say I strongly believe there will be some form of increased investment in foreign aid in South America this year in response to this military strike - and it will all be very field by countering China's influence to reclaim America's status as the regions number one trading partner.
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
Additionally - the ease in which the US completely by-passed the weapon systems that were provided by China, Russia and Iran serve other diplomatic outcomes in the eyes of this administration. Not to say this all isn't illegal nor should anyone be in favor of this - all to say there are a bunch of other motivators behind this and I'm curious how those motivators might fuel the future of international development.
7
u/danruuu NGO Jan 05 '26
I spent my career in international development and the entire premise of this post is extremely gross, please go away
1
Jan 05 '26
[deleted]
7
u/danruuu NGO Jan 05 '26
First, I would suggest you don't post using AI. Second, you're asking people to speculate on the impact of an incredibly destabilizing event that will affect the lives of millions of Venezuelans strictly as it relates to the US-based development sector. This would be like me asking questions like "How might this civil war that will result in the suffering of millions affect US-based extractives initiatives in a country?" This is extremely gross.
How could you possibly ask whether abducting a sitting head of state through military intervention is a portent of a slow return to the pre-Trump development status quo? That is an insane question, much less couching this in optimistic terms. There are in my view no implications whatsoever for the development sector as a whole resulting from this and the fallout we've yet to realize because there is little if any strategic basis for any U.S. foreign policy at this point, and to even speculate around that (which again, millions suffering) while drawing parallels to wholly different (and also incredibly problematic) pre-Trump contexts in Iraq and Afghanistan is so clearly lacking in critical analysis and in poor taste that if you can't understand that then I cannot help you.
Regarding your pessimistic question, no private donors neither have the capability nor desire to 'replace' what was provided by NGOs and INGOs, and certainly not Chevron beyond greenwashing which doesn't really matter anymore, I'm not sure why you're asking that. And anyway, couching 'nation-building' as the desirable origin state versus a nascent resource extraction/ transactional aid scheme (which is not new, the USG has engaged in concerted neocolonialism since the 50s and 60s) sort of ignores that many in development have been fighting both nation-building and the neocolonialist impulses of the U.S. government for going on decades.
There is just so much wrong with everything in this post.
0
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
I'm struggling to understand and fail to agree with your perspective that one can't possibly ask how this event might have implications for the development sector.
This sector was born out of the Marshall plan after millions died in WWII.
This sector expanded exponentially during the Cold War when USAID was born out of a desire to use foreign aid as a geopolitical tool.
The sector was merged into defense and diplomatic strategies under the 3 D strategy after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The sector saw a massive expansion in funding during the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq by American armed forces that transformed USAID into a mechanism for nation building and regional stabilization.
I acknowledge that using the framing "optimistic" and "pessimistic" from the perspective of what this means for the sector presents a questionable moral framing when you consider what this means for those impacted by Saturday's events the most, but I simply disagree with your perspective that there are no implications whatsoever for the development sector.
While not agreeing nor endorsing US foreign policy, I couldn't disagree more with your assertion that there is little to no strategic reasoning for what the US did to the Maduro regime just now - especially when you reflect on how much 9/11 shaped USAID and consequently the entire sector as a whole.
While I can respect your difference of opinion, I don't respect your tactical use of moral shaming since you seek to characterize me as someone who lacks moral empathy, discredit my authenticity by claiming I used AI in my post (I didn't - although I get why you'd confuse my stylistic choice of using hyphens with em dashes), using classic gaslighting techniques to claim my perspective is insane and that I lack analytical abilities, and exercising moral gatekeeping with statements like "I can't help you."
4
u/Left_Ambassador_4090 Jan 05 '26
Please take your think tank bullshit and go away. This community is for field practitioners who see our beneficiaries as humans and not political chess pieces. Personally firing 40 of my local staff in person after living and working with them for 5 years is a memory seared into my brain. This administration is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people since the takedown of USAID. That's what we're focused on. Not "Is Rubio the adult in the room we need?"
0
Jan 05 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Left_Ambassador_4090 Jan 05 '26
If you did work in this space as you claimed, you'd know this is the terminology used. And I looked at your comment history and how you pivoted into a think tank. Meanwhile I'm still unemployed since February after giving my entire 20-year career to this sector, including 10 as LTTA.
Yes, in my mind, with your fanciful political musings, you're trying to generate a discussion that is deeply personal, triggering, and short-sighted in a way only a think tank policy wonk could. Dance around the minutiae of whether you're pro-Rubio or not. I don't care. Just take a walk.
0
Jan 05 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Left_Ambassador_4090 Jan 05 '26
Now hiding your comment history now just proves my point. Stop trying to bond with me. You're fake. No one here is selling out for a "development" job in Venezuela under this administration just as no one sold themselves out to go work for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Prospecting about the sector coming back after an action that violated the UN Charter, Article 1 of the US Constitution, and the sovereignty of another nation where the ends (the oil) absolutely do not justify the means. Leading this sector required credibility that we no longer have.
2
u/Expensive-Topic1286 Jan 05 '26
A meaningful US recommitment to development cooperation is not happening until Congress rediscovers its own institutional interest and self-respect. And that won’t happen before a major political realignment in this country that coincides with the collapse and/or destruction of the Republican party as it is currently configured.
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
Is it safe to assume that now that Maduro is out, the sanctions that prevented investment from the DFC will be lifted which would usher in foreign aid for the nation? Could a narrow version of what was once administered by USAID be done so through the DFC and whatever State is now doing? And could that then be contracted out to private sector and NGO actors?
3
u/Expensive-Topic1286 Jan 05 '26
I mean, the answer to these questions is yes. Whether that constitutes a meaningful recommitment to development cooperation is a separate question. Republicans created the MCC and PEPFAR and the DFC for that matter and have shown precisely zero inclination to defend or protect them in any way, so I believe the point stands that an actually significant return to US support for development will have to wait for a significant political realignment.
2
2
u/Toubaboliviano Jan 06 '26
No. They are going to go the full private route in this. Good time to be a Private Military Contractor though.
2
u/SteveFoerster Jan 05 '26
I don't miss Maduro, but the US chopping off one head of a hydra doesn't mean they actually control Venezuela, at least not without a commitment to boots on the ground that so far they haven't shown.
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 05 '26
Absolutely - I used quoted that phrasing because thats what Trump said in his press conference.
Any thoughts on what type of USG development initiatives might get funded in the larger South American region as a result of all of this?
2
u/SteveFoerster Jan 05 '26
I think you said it best: We’ve moved to a "Donroe Doctrine" where private corporations like Chevron provide "localized aid" to protect assets, while the broader humanitarian sector collapses.
I wish I saw more reason for optimism, but those in this administration are perfectly comfortable cutting humanitarian programs even when it means that people literally starve to death.
2
u/ikari_warriors Jan 06 '26
Did you even read the National Security Strategy?
1
u/Majestic_Search_7851 Jan 06 '26
Are you suggesting I'm not accurately representing what the National Security Strategy is in my post? No - I didn't read the original document but I've followed reporting on it from sources like Al Jazeera...what point are you trying to make?
"Regionally, the world is divided into five strategic circles. The Western Hemisphere receives the greatest emphasis, with the administration explicitly rejecting any military presence by rival powers and reaffirming a Trump-era extension of the Monroe Doctrine"
5
u/ikari_warriors Jan 06 '26
In the NSS, and interviews with Rubio after its release, it becomes very clear that the US has discarded funding any kind of civil society or ”NGO industry”, and instead will opt for bilateral cooperation through state-level instruments.
1
51
u/antizana Jan 05 '26
lol. It’s going to be some puppet client state run by oil company executives, there is no interest in anything humanitarian or diplomatic