What is the impact of USAID’s closure on Mexico?
USAID and American flags flying in Washington, DC. Image credit: UPI / Alamy.
President Donald Trump’s attempt to close the congressionally mandated agency USAID without congressional approval has shocked policymakers and activists worldwide. It doesn’t appear to have shocked Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum. She backed the closure in her Wednesday press conference, calling it “for the best” and criticizing what she described as a lack of transparency. It’s a claim that raised eyebrows among the aid community in Mexico, given how publicly accessible its work was up until events forced the agency offline.
The impact in Mexico will be real but muted. USAID’s office there is relatively small, spending $99 million between 2019 and 2023, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Up to now, a team of about 50 worked across five areas: human rights, rule of law, civil society, transparency and corruption, and citizen security. Their focus was developing policy models, sometimes in partnership with the Mexican government, sometimes to push for broader national adoption. They often work with the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL).
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has framed the closure as a review, suggesting some programs may resume later this year. Former Ambassador to Mexico Earl Wayne expects some to return, citing their constructive - if uneven - impact. He highlights USAID’s work on law enforcement training programs as particularly valuable to the US, which reinforces programs in the same broad area paid for by INL.
“[These programs are] significant because you have the opportunity to train people to make it through to the field,” Wayne explains. More than just skills, “You’re building relationships with people who are going to be carrying out duties [in the field] or directing these units. These are relationships you and the rest of the embassy rely on in the future.”
Sheinbaum may not publicly acknowledge this value, but Wayne believes she will miss USAID’s presence if its programs are permanently shut down. “They value the training, and they value the leadership in a number of areas,” he says of Mexico’s government.
Seen from Washington or Mexico City, personal relationships built through USAID’s work may seem insignificant. But for US border agents, for example, having well-trained, sympathetic law enforcement on the other side is a net benefit. For the Mexican people, having institutions and law enforcement officials operating to specific standards of probity is also a clear benefit.
That said, the GAO has found it difficult to measure the effectiveness of USAID assistance to Mexico. That’s partly due to the challenge of negotiating shared performance metrics with Mexico. USAID Mexico staff, however, see their work differently, citing to us thousands of trained public officers and improved institutional practices as concrete results which they are proud of.
Even if some programs resume after Rubio’s review, much of the institutional memory will be lost. The American team is being repatriated this weekend. Wired reported yesterday the agency will be reduced to under 300 personnel. But there are legal challenges underway and only Congress can enact that kind of funding reduction. For now, the US staff remain under administrative leave. The Mexican staff, however, are not being afforded that leave. Instead, they are currently operating under the impression that they have 30 days before they will be out of work. It’s safe to assume most won’t hang around to find out how US courts decide the challenges before them. But the loss isn’t just personnel—it’s also the relationships they built. For two weeks, they’ve been unable to contact their external partners. Its staff feel they have left painstakingly cultivated connections withering in a void.
Wayne believes this disruption can be overcome. He recalls the transition from Presidents Calderón to Peña Nieto when a proposed overhaul of USAID’s mission forced a pause on work that was later resumed. With its Mexican staff likely to be out the door by the end of the month, taking with them many on the ground relationships, any resumption will take time.
USAID is not the linchpin of civic reform or development in Mexico. Sources describe a small agency doing fragmented work with a macro policy impact difficult to quantify. That reality, alongside its institution building work which the Mexican President’s party has sought to diminish, means it’s no surprise Sheinbaum doesn’t mourn its closure. But she should at least try to engage with the State Department to help shape a bolder agency for Mexico. One that addresses in a big way the root causes of the issues facing the region. Sheinbaum may support shutting down USAID, but she nevertheless has reason to hope much of its work continues.