When former US President Donald Trump initiated the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), it sent shockwaves through the international community. Yet, in Sierra Leone, a nation profoundly shaped by foreign aid interventions, the reaction was notably different. For many on the ground, this latest development felt less like a catastrophe and more like a predictable chapter in a long, complicated relationship.
A History of Betrayal and Broken Promises
The sentiment captured in the phrase 'They take the money and go' resonates deeply in Sierra Leone. This perspective, as reported by Mara Kardas-Nelson and voiced by Lanna Joffrey in The Guardian's Audio Long Read, stems from a legacy of perceived disappointments. While USAID and other international bodies have poured billions into development projects across Africa, the tangible, sustainable benefits for ordinary citizens have often felt elusive.
Local communities have frequently witnessed aid money being absorbed by administrative costs, expensive foreign consultants, and projects that do not align with long-term local needs. The abrupt end of programmes, shifting geopolitical priorities, and a lack of meaningful local ownership have fostered a sense of cynicism. Therefore, the winding down of USAID under the Trump administration was viewed by some not with mourning, but with a weary recognition of a familiar pattern.
The Shadow of the Ebola Crisis
This scepticism is hardened by recent history, most notably the devastating Ebola outbreak that struck Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia. The international response, while massive, was also criticised for being slow at the onset and poorly coordinated at times. The crisis exposed glaring weaknesses in health systems that years of aid had failed to adequately strengthen. For many Sierra Leoneans, the experience reinforced the idea that external aid is an unreliable partner in times of existential crisis, often arriving late and leaving with the headlines.
The aftermath saw promises of 'building back better' and creating resilient systems. Yet, the perception that much of the funding failed to translate into lasting, community-controlled infrastructure or capacity has left a bitter aftertaste. This context is crucial for understanding why the potential disappearance of a major aid agency like USAID is met with resignation rather than alarm in some quarters.
A Shift in Perspective on International Aid
The complex emotions surrounding USAID's fate signal a broader, more nuanced conversation about the future of international development. The traditional model of top-down, donor-driven aid is increasingly being questioned both within donor nations and in recipient countries.
Critics argue for models that prioritise direct investment, local entrepreneurship, and governance support over large-scale project aid. The perspective from Sierra Leone suggests a demand for partnerships based on transparency, accountability, and mutual respect rather than dependency. The end of an era for USAID could, paradoxically, create space for more equitable and effective forms of international cooperation.
Ultimately, the view from Sierra Leone challenges the simplistic narrative of benevolent donors and grateful recipients. It highlights a deep-seated desire for self-determination and a weariness with solutions that are perceived as temporary or externally imposed. The story is not one of being anti-aid, but of being pro-agency, demanding a seat at the table where the decisions about the country's future are made.
