Chris Spencer

Trump and His Inner Circle of Tech Titans Usher in a New Era of Greek-Style Austerity for the Masses While Insulating Themselves From the Economic Fallout.

In February 2025, the United States had begun the irreversible destruction of one of its most enduring emblems of goodwill toward the rest of the world, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). For decades, USAID had been a cornerstone of America's pledge to assuage suffering, promote democracy, and build stability.

The United States, as a global superpower, has long been a beacon of hope and aid for many nations. However, under the administration of former President Donald Trump and at the urging of tech mogul Elon Musk, this critical agency was defunded and eventually dismantled. To populists, it was a victory--an example of American self-interest reasserting its rightful place in the world.

However, this shift has far more significant consequences, underscoring deeper, darker currents in American identity and running the risk of diminished American leadership globally. At the heart of this shift is the myth of America as the world's most charitable nation--a story that the country has told itself loudly and repeatedly, but which falls apart on closer inspection.

This made America's status as the world's most generous country a fundamentally flawed understanding of generosity, rooted in dollar amounts that the U.S. sent abroad in foreign aid. In reality, it was much more complicated when one considered the data about the size of the American economy.

This dismantling of USAID exposes a concerning reality: how America is not truly a champion for global generosity and has become very self-congratulatory, to the point that it is drifting further away from global collective responsibility. The country seems to refuse to take its rightful place concerning shared duty worldwide, instead clinging deep into an unyieldingly comforting fold within a self-centered, narcissistic ethos.

Myth of American Generosity

The story of America as the most generous nation on earth is a patriotic fairy tale told by politicians keen to bask in the glow of national pride. But the truth, on further scrutiny, suggests that this tale of America's generosity is greatly exaggerated at best and deeply misleading at worst. In 2022, the United States committed a whopping $46 billion in foreign aid, which, on its face, represents a country intent on the global good. Based on this premise, America is an unprecedented benefactor for the world's most vulnerable nations.

Yet, the picture changes dramatically when we compare foreign aid as a percentage of a nation's gross domestic product (GDP). Despite this colossal total in absolute terms, America's contribution amounts to just 0.18% of its GDP, placing the U.S. only 22nd in the world rankings for foreign aid. 

This position puts it behind many countries that, by any measure, are far smaller in both wealth and population. For example, Luxembourg, with fewer than 650,000 citizens, contributes 1.02% of its GDP to foreign aid--nearly six times as much as the U.S. 

Norway and Sweden--two Scandinavian countries with exemplary social welfare systems--give 1.0% and 0.99% of their GDPs, respectively. Even the United Arab Emirates (UAE), arguably one of the world's most extravagant and excessive nations, gives 1.0% of its GDP to international aid.

Here's where American exceptionalism bites the dust. While currently a wealthy superpower, the U.S. falls well behind countries whose economies are a fraction of the size. Rather than being an exemplar of generosity, the U.S. ranks far below these nations regarding proportionality. This is a more profound truth: while Americans have long felt justified in their self-image as the global benevolent leader, the nation's contributions to global humanitarianism are a fraction of what more minor, less affluent countries contribute.

The Narcissism of Trump and Musk

The defunding and dismantling of USAID represent the tip of the iceberg in a far more profound, sinister turn of American politics, brought to light by Donald Trump and now propelled by Elon Musk. In particular, Trump's "America First" rhetoric framed national interest as surpassing international cooperation; he called on the world to decrease U.S. involvement abroad, especially concerning humanitarian aid.

Under Trump, foreign aid was seen not as an investment in global stability but as a drain on American resources. This perspective struck an unusually responsive chord among large numbers of Americans.

Another insidious ideological shift has been the supremacy of individual ambitions over collective action and responsibility, personified by Elon Musk, whose influence has grown exponentially in the technology sector.

Musk represents the new ethos of American leadership, a vision of privatized space exploration and technological dominance. It is a leadership class that no longer hinges on compassion or cooperation but on self-aggrandizement and individual success. Musk's rise as a political figure and influencer reflects a significant shift away from a model of shared global responsibility toward a world ordered by the untrammeled ambitions of the wealthy elite.

Together, Trump and Musk have set a fundamentally anti-cooperation course, anti-globalism. Despite its imperfections and occasional inefficiencies, USAID has long been one of the primary tools through which the United States exercised soft power, helping stabilize fragile states, combat diseases like malaria and HIV, promote democratic governance, and respond to natural disasters.

In dismantling this agency, the U.S. is not just striking a line item from its budget; it is abdicating its role as a leader in global humanitarianism. This loss of leadership is a cause for concern, as it leaves a void that other countries, such as Norway, Sweden, and China, will move in to fill, further lessening American influence on the world stage.

The Consequences of Stinginess

The consequences of America's retreat from global humanitarianism are dire and far-reaching. As the U.S. steps away from its responsibility as an international leader in humanitarian aid, any moral authority the country had slowly slips through its fingers. Small but more socially sensitive countries like Norway and Sweden will move to uphold tradition with their continuing generosity in foreign aid, sustained as ethical international leaders. Even China, with its record on human rights more often criticized than not, is positioning itself increasingly as an alternative donor for developing nations via its Belt and Road Initiative.

The Future of American Leadership

The dismantling of USAID has been a seminal moment in American history, dividing America's past as a leader in global philanthropy and its future as an inward-looking, self-absorbed, self-interested power. It is an ideological shift from collectivism toward hyper-individualism that threatens to shake America's moral authority abroad and within its borders.

The world is not going to wait for America to decide. It is our choice: Will we retreat further into our self-interest or reaffirm our leadership in the world based on the enduring spirit of generosity, compassion, and shared responsibility? The answer will define our future--and that of the world.

Comparing Greece in 2008 to Trump's push in 2025 to dissolve USAID, one does find some parallels in populism but differences in motivation. Greece in 2008:

    Economic Crisis: Greece had experienced a financial collapse and thus needed international bailouts both from the EU and the IMF, with strict austerity measures attached. Such external intervention brought a backlash of resentment and increased populist and anti-globalization movements, like Syriza, which focused on Greek sovereignty.

Trump and USAID in 2025:

    Personal Dynasty Focus: Trump's efforts to dismantle USAID are less ideological than personal, aimed at consolidating his and his family's power. His populist talk, including his criticism of foreign aid, promotes a narrative about "America First," but fundamentally, it's driven by self-interest, not national principles.

Isolationism and Sovereignty: Just like Greece's stand against the EU, Trump is opposed to USAID because both reflect the tendency to restrict external influence. However, whereas Greece's move was out of economic compulsion, the dismantling of USAID by Trump has more to do with retaining power and enriching his personal and familial interests.

Similarities:

The blaming of foreign intervention and the call for national authority in populist rhetoric are present in both the Greek element and Trump, but in Trump's case, the motivation is much closer to self-interest rather than a nationalist imperative.

Difference in Important Ways:

Trump's Self-Interest: In contrast with Greece's very real economic plight, Trump's motivations are rooted in personal ambition for a political-financial dynasty, not ideological devotion to sovereignty or national wellbeing.

On a personal level, this feels like an Obama and the Banksters move. Very disappointing.