Evaluating Trump and Musk’s Cuts to USAID: Weighing the Pros and Cons of Bureaucratic Systems

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have launched a wave of dismantling government agencies, firing civil servants, and cutting funding for NGOs.

Among the first to be targeted is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which provides humanitarian aid and human rights support worldwide. The agency is set to be downsized from over 10,000 employees to just 290. At the same time, the United States also halted funding for many humanitarian aid programs and human rights initiatives in Asian, African, and Latin American countries.

The justification for these cuts is that many U.S. government agencies and the NGOs they fund are corrupt, wasteful, and inefficient, consuming large amounts of taxpayer money. Musk has strongly criticized these institutions and their personnel, even sending out young investigators—reminiscent of China’s “Red Guards”—to inspect agencies and lay off civil servants.

I do not support these actions. While these agencies, NGOs, and their personnel do have issues such as corruption, waste, and inefficiency, their contributions far outweigh their shortcomings. Overall, their benefits greatly surpass their drawbacks.

USAID, for example, has played a crucial role in alleviating famine in Africa, improving the health of women and children in Southeast Asia, and strengthening human rights movements in authoritarian countries. These efforts have made significant contributions to global peace, development, and humanitarian progress. As with any system or institution, problems are inevitable, but they should not be a reason to dismantle the entire structure.

The public detests cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and dislikes officials and civil servants who speak in bureaucratic jargon. They believe that bureaucracy and formalism are ineffective and merely siphon off taxpayers’ money. This is why they are drawn to populist figures like Trump, who promise to break the old system. Emotionally, this sentiment is understandable. However, eliminating bureaucratic procedures and dismissing civil servants would ultimately have even worse consequences for the public.

A few years ago, I wrote an article on Hungary and the European Union (EU), using the EU as an example to discuss the pros and cons of bureaucratic systems. Here is an excerpt:

Opponents of the EU, particularly anti-establishment populists, do have some seemingly reasonable and understandable motives. The EU, as a massive institution—arguably one of the largest bureaucratic systems in the world, comparable in scale and complexity only to China and India—indeed faces some bureaucratic issues. Its composition is not entirely fair or reasonable (larger countries dominate institutions, and elites hold most of the decision-making power), and its operations are not always smooth. Naturally, its policies and influence have both positive and negative effects.

However, despite these flaws, the EU remains one of the most successful bureaucratic institutions in the world. It has significantly improved the economic and social standards of European nations, particularly less developed ones. While every institution has its shortcomings, they do not justify dismantling the entire system—one should not “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Yet, anti-EU populists, much like the figures criticized in Lu Xun’s essay Napoleon and China’s Sui Dynasty, are only sensitive to disruption and destruction. They even flatter the strong and ruthless while ignoring or even attacking those who quietly work to build and sustain order.

A relevant comparison is Wikipedia. I once contributed to Chinese Wikipedia but eventually left due to selective enforcement by politically biased administrators, repeated bans, and internal power struggles. Indeed, Wikipedia has many issues, especially within its Chinese-language branch, where administrators abuse their authority, oppress editors, and engage in internal conflicts and collusion. Wikipedia’s editors and administrators represent different values and interest groups, meaning that its content moderation is often biased, and controversial topics are subject to frequent ideological and interest-driven edits. Wikipedia’s rules—especially regarding deletions and bans—are also flawed, with numerous loopholes and inconsistencies.

Yet, despite all these shortcomings, Wikipedia remains an essential resource for basic knowledge, reference materials, and research leads. The EU’s institutions, in terms of composition, operations, and oversight, are far more transparent, well-structured, and fair than platforms like Wikipedia. The EU considers the interests of smaller and weaker nations in its institutional framework and actively promotes the representation and participation of women and other marginalized groups. While emphasizing integration, it also respects diversity—its motto is United in Diversity.

The EU’s highest decision-making body, the European Parliament, consists of members elected by the citizens of each member state through universal suffrage. Apart from a few highly classified matters, all EU operations and decisions are fully transparent and open to external scrutiny and criticism. In terms of efficiency, the EU performs well, as evidenced by the economic growth of its member states over the years. Moreover, EU officials and civil servants are among the cleanest in the world, with levels of integrity comparable to those in Singapore and Northern Europe. This is a remarkable achievement, demonstrating that bureaucracy, centralization, and regulation do not necessarily lead to corruption.

Bureaucracy exists in every institution. Even populists who criticize bureaucracy will inevitably adopt bureaucratic structures once in power. Moreover, bureaucratic features such as complex procedures and formal regulations are often necessary. The absence of such rules leads to disorder, chaos, arbitrariness, and even major disasters. Decisions made by professional elites are generally more reliable than those made by unqualified leaders. While individual policies may be flawed, the overarching principles and long-term direction remain stable, ensuring the proper functioning of institutions and society. The relative detachment of elites from the general public is not a major problem—everyone has self-interest, but as long as they perform their duties competently, the system can still function effectively.

In contrast, populist leaders often turn out to be even more ruthless and cruel once they gain power. Their lack of pretense in masking their callousness makes them even more dangerous. Mao Zedong’s rise to power, replacing Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government—which represented capitalist elites—only to plunge China into decades of disaster, is a prime historical example.

Although the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had some highly educated intellectuals, most of its cadres—including those who later became senior government and ministry officials—lacked formal education and professional expertise. Compared to the Western-educated technocrats of the Republic of China, they initially appeared more “down-to-earth” and sympathetic to the common people. Before and shortly after coming to power, they exhibited democratic tendencies and pragmatic governance.

However, within just a few years, their bureaucratic tendencies, selfishness, and ruthlessness far exceeded those of Nationalist officials. Worse still, under their incompetent leadership, China experienced numerous anti-intellectual disasters. The Great Leap Forward’s campaigns to produce backyard steel and the exaggerated grain yield reports—both of which led to economic collapse and massive famines—are prime examples. Mao Zedong, as the figurehead of populist and anti-establishment movements, was the worst offender. But other CCP leaders followed the same pattern.

For instance, during the Great Chinese Famine (1959–1962), provincial leaders such as Zeng Xisheng, Li Jingquan, Wu Zhipu, Shu Tong, and Zhang Zhongliang, along with many local officials, were all from humble farming backgrounds. One might expect them to understand agricultural realities and empathize with the suffering of the people. Instead, they presided over policies that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions in their respective provinces. Even if they were not the primary culprits, their actions exacerbated the crisis. Had they possessed a solid education and basic economic knowledge, they might have resisted disastrous policies instead of blindly enforcing them.

Populist leaders, despite occasional successes, govern in an unscientific manner. They often reject expert advice and fail to consider long-term consequences, making disasters almost inevitable.

As for issues of fairness, no person or system can achieve absolute justice or complete equality. True fairness lies in relative equality—legal equality and reduced wealth disparities. Pro-EU elites have indeed gained certain benefits, but their contributions generally match their rewards. Moreover, institutions can be reformed and improved. Bureaucracies and elites are not immutable; they can be subjected to public scrutiny, media criticism, systemic reforms, and personnel changes.

Thus, the people of Europe—including anti-establishment populists—should cherish the achievements of European integration and objectively recognize the EU’s role. They should not overlook the silent contributions that sustain order and stability. The EU’s accomplishments in maintaining peace and fostering development in Europe and beyond are even more remarkable than the victories of World War II’s countless battles. The difference is that the EU’s success shines in the daylight, rather than flashing momentarily in the darkness of war. It should not be ignored.

The same logic applies to USAID and other U.S. government agencies and related NGOs. Issues like corruption, inefficiency, and waste must be addressed through reforms, firings of incompetent officials, increased transparency, and stronger oversight. However, completely dismantling these institutions in a populist manner—stigmatizing, destroying, and abandoning their human rights and humanitarian missions—will only lead to greater tragedies in the U.S. and across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.