Marianna Karakoulaki, Mia Huyn, Scarlet Vass, and Thomas Bobo

Download PDF

May 31 2025

2

In April 2023, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in the US, published a 900-page document titled 2025 Presidential Transition Project, which became known asProject 2025. Project 2025 set a list ofseveral broad conservative objectivesthat would reassert presidential power, reshape the Federal government, consolidate executive power in favour of right-wing policies, and re-establish American traditional values. Donald Trumpvehemently deniedthat he would adopt Project 2025 during his presidential campaign. It soon became clear that he fully embraced it. Donald Trumps inaugural speech set the tone for the policies that were to come. For Trump, America was under attack and American citizens had to beprotected: From this moment on, Americas decline is over. From stricter border controls and an attack on migrants to reversing climate initiatives in order to battle the USAs energy emergency, Trump set the stepping stone for a more isolationist and nationalist American era.

On the day of his inauguration, he signed 26 executive orders, 11 presidential memoranda and repealed 67 executive orders signed by his predecessor, Joe Biden. Part of these 26 executive orders,drafted from theProject 25 playbook, was the executive order that targeted Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) which are described asradical and wasteful, an executive order on protecting women fromgenderideology, and there-evaluation and realigningof foreign aid. The impacts of these executive orders go beyond the US borders. In this short article, we will look at how these orders have impacted global development by discussing the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), the targeting of gender equality and the Women, Peace and Security agenda, and the broader impacts on migration and the environment. Although these issues may seem disconnected, we argue that Trumps hostile approach to Global Development is part of a broader, long-standing process of reversal of such policies by Western liberal democracies.

DOGE and the Dismantling of USAID

Following Elon Musks endorsement and financing of Donald Trumps campaign, Musks plan to take over the US bureaucracy started taking form. Elon Musk first mentioned the creation of a government efficiency commission during apodcaston 2 August 2025. A few days later, Donald Trump and Elon Musk held a discussion on X onissuesthat ranged from climate change and energy policy to immigration and nuclear warfare. Days following Donald Trumps re-election, Trump, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy and others gathered at Mar-a-Lago, where Trump announced the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Musk and Ramaswamy were initially in charge of the organisation. DOGE took shape with an executive order on 20 January 2025. A day later,Ramaswamy quit, leaving Musk as the sole leader. The organisations own identity is abstract, as it is not a formal department of the US Government for this to happen, it needs to be approved by the Congress. Itspurposeis modernising federal technology and software to maximise government efficiency and itsmissionis to end the tyranny of the bureaucracy.

As DOGE moved to pause all foreign aid, which for the US includes both development and military funding, USAID became its primary target. By 2023 the US was theworlds largest contributorof foreign aid having spent $68 billion in foreign aid, more than $40 billion of which were USAIDs. The Agency had asignificantpresence in Europe, especially Ukraine, Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. As soon as DOGE announced the dismantling of USAID, itsprojects froze, and its staff were put on administrative leave. This triggered a series of repercussions in sectors where the organisation was active. Specifically, in 2023, USAID wasmostly involvedin economic development, humanitarian assistance, program support, health, governance, peace and security and the environment. For example, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, Somalia and the Congo topped the chart forforeign aid through USAID, with Ukraine receiving $16.43 billion in aid. Soup kitchens in Sudanclosedwithin a week of the announcement, healthcare services in Sudan and elsewhere were stopped, and millions are projected to lose access, HIV clinics throughout Africashut down, leaving thousands without medicine.

Despite DOGEs aim to tackle bureaucracy, it soon became clear that the agency was targeting DEI. An article published on theWhite House websitesingled out USAID and accused it of WASTE and ABUSE. The article lists twelve projects and their funding: $1.5 millionto advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbias workplaces and business communities; $70,000for production of a DEI musical in Ireland; $2.5 millionfor electric vehicles for Vietnam; $47,000for a transgender opera in Colombia; Fundingto print personalized contraceptives birth control devices in developing countries among others. At the same time, Elon Musk and others were sharingdebunkedclaims related to USAIDs spending on social media. It became clear that for Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and theirwar on woke, the USAs soft power and international objectives were starkly different from DEI- and USAID-related practice.

Gender and the Women, Peace and Security Agenda

Among the executive orders Donald Trump signed on the day of his inauguration, one focused on gender. Its primary aim is to defend women from what was framed asgender ideology extremism, orders that federal funds shall not be used to promote gender ideology. The orders primary target is transgender rights by insisting on a biological definition of sex, and denying the existence of trans people as a group:

The executive order on gender cannot be seen separately from the executive order on DEI, which istitledending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing, as well as the dismantling of USAID. The DEI executive order programmes that were implemented during the Biden Administration were framed as illegal and immoral discrimination programs. Taken together, these executive orders have been used to eliminate all gender and DEI advisors and programs from USAID, even before the entire agency was dismantled by DOGE, and used tothreatenother UN agencies, international contractors and even the private sector and force them toscrub gender and DEI from their work. DOGEs use of language, time and sequencing is important to note. First of all, regarding the language DOGE has used and specifically the use of the word scrub implies that gender and DEI were dirty stains that had to be vigorously removed. In addition, regarding the timing and sequencing, the scrubbing of gender and DEI came first, well before the full-blown dismantling of the entire agency by DOGE. So while the elimination of USAID seemed swift, the foregrounding of the public erasure of progressive approaches such as gender and DEI was a deliberate move to make a statement about what will no longer be tolerated by the MAGA administration and to instil fear and compliance.

Furthermore, the Trump administration has flagged a list of hundreds of words thatshould be avoidedin official discourse, including: equity, female, black, social justice, multicultural, socio-economic, trauma to name just a few. By doing so, they are exposing their strategy of using language and discourse to spread neo-patriarchal ideology, or more specifically, to silence and repress progressive, inclusive policies and programs both domestically and internationally. Using the language of gender ideology, Trumps administration aligns itself with abroader movementthat opposes not only trans rights but also progressive gender norms. Although relatively recent in the United States,references to gender ideologyhave been a prominent part of far-right and religious rhetoric in Europe and Latin America for over a decade. Progressive political shifts related to gender have challenged the patriarchal structures favoured by the far right. In both regions, the term has been used to justify extensive attacks on womens rights and LGBTQ rights, often claiming to defend the natural family. Instead of genuinely protecting women, efforts to eliminate gender ideology from federal policies and programs reflect a broader goal of reinstating traditional gender roles and hierarchies.

Trumps attack on gender has directly impacted the USAs Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) framework. In 2017, the USA, under Trumps first administration, became the first country to pass anational WPS law. The WPS Act was passed in order toensurethat the United States promotes the meaningful participation of women in mediation and negotiation processes seeking to prevent, mitigate, or resolve violent conflict. As part of the 2017 WPS Act, the Department of Defence (DoD) published its WPS Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan in 2020.. The Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan, included: training military personnel on WPS principles; supporting womens participation in peacekeeping; and embedding Gender Advisors and Gender Focal Points in several combatant commands, including the US-Africa Command training missions and United States European Command. The plan was updated in2024to also include international cooperation on WPS.

For analysts, the USAs WPS iscrucialfor US foreign and defence policy. On the one hand, the USAs commitment to WPS puts it ahead of its current adversaries and on the other, it gives the US anoperational advantagein conflict zones. Beyond its strategic utility, the WPS agenda plays a vital role in advancing sustainable peace. Decades of feminist research demonstrate that peace processes are more likely to produce durable and equitable outcomes when women are meaningfully included. By mandating womens participation, WPS enhances the effectiveness of peacebuilding efforts. It is also essential as the only binding international framework that directly addresses conflict-related sexual violence, establishing obligations for prevention, protection, and accountability for victims and survivors, including women, men, and children.

Despite the strategic benefits of the USAs WPS framework, key figures within the DoD are openly working to dismantle the program. Pete Hegseth, a political adviser and media figure with significant influence inside the DoD,postedatweetdeclaring that he had proudly ENDED the Women, Peace & Security program inside the DoD . He called WPS a woke and social justice distraction that troops HATE and said warfighting should be the priority. While the WPS Act of 2017 has not yet been repealed in its entirety, the DoD has since confirmed that it will now implement only the minimum legally required, which risks undermining the program. It is important to note that the design and implementation of WPS by the US has, and continues to, for now, involve multiple agencies. The DoD implements WPS through military partnerships, gender training, and support for gender advisors in peacekeeping contexts. Meanwhile, the former USAID supported WPS through aid to women-led civil society, peacebuilding, and humanitarian response.With the closure of USAID and the pushback on programmes that are deemed to promote gender ideology many programmes, including those related to WPS, and gendered peacebuilding more widely, have been dissolved, or quietly defunded, whilst others are being absorbed into the State Department.

As follows, what we are seeing in 2025 is not isolated to DoD, USAID or the State Department; it is a coordinated retreat across both defence and development from WPS and gendered peacebuilding more widely. By portraying gendered peacebuilding as a woke distraction from warfighting US policymakers are undermining two decades of consensus that womens participation is essential to sustainable peace. This signals a troubling return to a realist logic, where military power and state dominance define security, and anything outside that frame, such as WPS, becomes expendable. This puts various major WPS related programs that the US is involved in, at risk, for example: The Womens Peace and Humanitarian Fund backed by a $10 million U.S. contribution in 2023; the Women Lead initiative, for which the US pledged $150 dollars earlier this year; and the SHE WINS initiative, a $10 million USAID program set up in 2024 which works to build the capacity of women-led civil society in conflict zones.

The USs retreat from WPS has implications that go far beyond the contexts in which the US is involved. WPS programs depend on international alignment shared norms, coordinated funding, and political momentum. When a global power like the US not only withdraws support but recasts WPS as a woke and unnecessary agenda, the consequences are profound. It discredits feminist foreign policy frameworks like WPS and CEDAW, it emboldens authoritarian regimes by legitimising backlash against progressive gender norms, and it fractures international cooperation, making it harder to build the trust, funding, and coordination needed to implement WPS principles.

Wider Impacts: Migration and the Environment

Donald Trumps anti-migration and anti-environment politics have been known for years. His first electoral campaign was based on building abig, beautiful wallalong the US-Mexico border and on eliminating Barack Obamasenvironmental policies. Thus, a similar, if not stricter, stance during his second term was not a surprise. The executive orders issued on 20 January frame migrants asinvaders,suspended refugee admissions, framing them as a national security and public concern, promise tosecure the US borderunder the disguise of the US opioid crisis, declare anational energy emergency, vow tounleash American energyand puts America first inenvironmental agreements. Despite their domestic impact, these executive orders and especially the dismantling of USAID, have a clear effect in terms of global development politics and are related to the previous executive orders discussed earlier in this article.

USAID has played an important role in supporting migration-related projects globally, including in Europe and the Mediterranean. The withdrawal or reduction of its support is likely to have aripple effect, not only on directly funded organisations but also on migration assistance more broadly. Foreign aid is used toaddress the causesof migration and prevent irregular migration by funding organisations and projects in low-income countries. The reduction of financial support could lead to reduced services for migrants and asylum seekers, potentially increasing their vulnerability and reducing available pathways for integration and mobility within the workforce. In April 2025, civil society organisations that work within the refugee support sector within the EU called on the European Commission toconsider and reviseits approach to funding. According to theirletter:

At the same time, the reduction or cessation of USAID funding islikely to affectmigratory routes, especially in regions where USAID hashistorically supportedhost country infrastructures and services for refugees and migrants. The loss of such support diminishes local capacity to provide basic services, creating conditions that may prompt displaced individuals to seek stability elsewhere, including through irregular migration routes toward Europe. Although refugee movements are not the same as they were in 2015-2016, there are signs of anotable increase in 2024globally. While it may be premature to determine the full scale of this shift, such trends highlight the importance of sustained international support in mitigating forced displacement and onward movement.

Even prior to USAIDs structural changes, a tightening of migration policies has been observable across Europe. In recent years the European migratory landscape is similar to the USAs. In Greece for example, which is one of the gateways for the EU, current migration policies are characterised by securitisation, militarisation and deterrence. Reports ofpushbacks, substantiated by evidence presented in European courts, suggest that those attempting to enter or transit through Greece face heightened risks. If these trends continue, the Mediterranean is likely to witness increased fatalities and humanitarian crises, as safe and legal routes become even more limited. For the global civil society, reduced aid presents increasing operational challenges, legal risks, and shrinking civic space. For migrants, it results in greater precarity, diminished protection, and fewer safe options.

Gender, WPS and migration seem to have been operationalised by the US so that Trump reaches far and wide into the political spectrum yet the impact of his policies are far and wide. The environment is operationalised in a similar way. The declaration of anational energy emergencyputs the environment at the forefront of Trumps policies:

Trump seems to recognise that the environment is a global matter; however, by declaring a national emergency and insisting onprioritising the USAs interestsover international environmental policies, he exerts Americas hegemony over the environment. For Trump, the Paris Agreement is detrimental to the USAs power and economic stability; for this reason, he withdrew for the second time. The executive order on environmental agreements states:

The impacts of Trumps environmental policies, however, can be extensive and will last well beyond his Presidency. Combined with the cuts in the aid sector, the environmental future seems unclear. Similarly to USAID, DOGE haseliminatedthousands of positions that focus on environmental research, which is likely to impact innovation, setting the USA behind its competitors. At the same time, policies that were adopted during previous administrations were scrapped while the focus shifted towards deregulation. Within the first 100 days of this administration, Trumps deregulationimpactedenvironmental governance to an unprecedented degree, affecting biodiversity, clean air and water policy, and increasing the use of fossil fuels.

However, the specificity of the USAs involvement in the environmental sector has always been unstable due to its neoliberal approach towards nature; for this reason, the consequences of global aid reductions are not necessarily the same everywhere. Environmental cooperation and aid, as a relatively new sector, is very dependent on the political recognition of those challenges, and national, regional and international politics can pivot within the sector. At the UN level, for example, the United Nations Environment Programmesupports193 countries in reaching the Sustainable Development Goals. Political visibility, however, can quickly decrease in the same way it increases.

As international aid reduces or shifts in focus, such projects can be eliminated. In 2023,US foreign aidprovided almost $1.53 billion to biodiversity and other environmental programmes, which is a 69.7% increasecompared to 2013. Such programmes were halted as aid froze,shatteringnot only environmental efforts but also relations between project implementers and locals. In the context of mountingclimate denialism,post-truth discoursesand the USAs unstable policies, the already fragile sector of environmental aid and cooperation is increasingly exposed to instability in funding and political backing. Potential impacts of these changes in aid architecture are complex in a siloed sector where, for example, regarding biodiversity, the channelled funding islimited and inconsistent. Strong aid dependency, unequal power relations between donors and recipients, and uncertainty in continuity, put that fragile equilibrium to the test, with sometimes irreversible consequences such as theloss of biodiversity and extinction of species. In addition, despite an apparent scientificity in addressing ecological challenges, environmental aid is not just about nature or climate. It can impact socio-economic realities when funding is dependent on certain types of environmental performance, orsocial exclusion and violencein areas targeted by conservation efforts. As a contested field wherepolitical preference and other priorities affect the operationalisation of environment-related funding, challenges such as the one posed by the dismantling of USAID, while unsurprising considering broader movements of eco-scepticism, further weaken a sector highly dependent on long-term engagement for its functioning and improvement.

Conclusion

In this short article, we have tried to make sense of the wider impacts of the Trump Administrations policies by looking at part of the 26 executive orders he signed on the day of his inauguration. At first glance, these executive orders related to gender, security, migration, the environment and the dismantling of USAID may seem disconnected. However, as we have discussed, their impact is far-reaching and goes beyond the US border despite Trumps attempts to isolate the USA and prioritise America First. Trumps policies show, and the events that have taken place within the US since his election, highlight the USAs turn towards authoritarianism, as several political scientists haveargued. Indeed, the attack on peoples right to self-identify, the withdrawal from important defence policies, the framing of vulnerable populations as a threat and the attack on the environment show a not-so-subtle attempt to normalise policies that are popular within far-right circles. Trumps policies highlight a far-right backwardness that impacts the global development world exponentially; whether those in power will be able to sustain the impacts remains to be seen.

Further Reading on E-International Relations

• Opinion Re-election in Doubt: The Perfect Storm Approaches Donald Trump
• Scorekeeping With Donald Trump in a COVID-19 Language Game
• Age of the Deal: Donald Trump Won the Battle of Seattle
• America First Revisited: Trumps Agenda and Its Global Implications
• Opinion The Path Beyond Trump in US Human Rights Policies
• Opinion The Future of German Feminist Foreign and Development Policy

About The Author(s)

Marianna Karakoulakiis a Doctoral Researcher in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at theUniversity of Birminghamand was a Lecturer in Sociology atAnglia Ruskin Universityfor 2024-2025. She is E-International Relations Articles Editor and a Director of E-IRs Editorial Board.Her research focuses on critical border studies and looks at border violence, forced displacement and death. In addition, Marianna is an award-winning journalist with a focus on forced displacement in the Mediterranean. She is the editor (with Laura Southgate and Jakob Steiner) ofCritical Perspectives on Migration in the 21st Centuryby E-IR in 2018. Her work can be found on herwebsite.

Mia Hyunis a Doctoral Researcher in the Department of International Development at theUniversity of Birmingham(UK). Her research focuses on gender based violence policy reform in Cambodia, from a feminist institutionalist and political will lens. Her research examines the degree to which GBV policies have been adopted, operationalised and implemented, and analyses the underlying causes leading to variations in outcomes. Her approach is grounded in gender regime theory, and looks at how gendered power asymmetries are woven through political processes. Her research examines the use of framing policy instruments rather than policy issues, and how this is informed by gendered priors. She has been working as a gender advisor in South East Asia for a range of donors for several years. You can find her onLinkedIn.

Scarlet Vassis a Doctoral Researcher in the International Development Department at the University of Birmingham. Her research examines the localisation of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda in Uganda through the Local Action Plan (LAP) process.

Thomas Bobois a Doctoral Researcher in the Department of Political Science and International Studies at theUniversity of Birmingham(UK). His research focuses on the intersection between internal violence and the environment from the political and discursive perspective. He studies how environmental discourses within internal violent conflicts emerge, evolve, and are utilised as environmental politics gain prominence in international, national and local agendas. Thomass research examines the construction of competing ecological visions and how these become political vehicles for belligerents to affect the conflicts power balance. His work currently focuses on the case of the Zapatista conflict (Chiapas, Mexico). Before starting his doctoral research, he worked at the French Agency for International Technical Cooperation and in the United Nations System.

DevelopmentDOGEDonald TrumpEnvironmentGenderMigrationUSAIDWPS agenda