Media Wire Express Correspondent
After years of silence in some of the world’s most politically fragile regions, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has quietly returned to six countries Syria, Somalia, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Ecuador.
While officials describe the move as a renewed commitment to global development, the announcement has triggered fresh skepticism from those who remember the agency’s controversial history in these areas.
On paper, USAID says it’s stepping back in to help. The focus, according to a statement shared through diplomatic channels, is to promote economic growth, restore essential services, and support communities grappling with instability. In reality, the picture is far more complex.
In countries like Syria and Iraq, for example, USAID’s prior involvement went far beyond rebuilding schools or clinics. During years of American military presence, aid programs often ran parallel to defense strategies—sometimes even in coordination. The lines between development and geopolitics were blurred, leading many to suspect that aid was being used as a diplomatic tool more than a humanitarian response.
Somalia and Lebanon, too, have long wrestled with foreign influence. In both nations, USAID-funded projects were at times criticized for lacking cultural sensitivity, imposing external agendas, or being too closely aligned with political actors. For residents living through these interventions, the return of such a powerful international agency stirs mixed emotions—hope for assistance, but also concern over history repeating itself.
Ecuador offers another cautionary tale. Years ago, the South American nation pushed back hard against what it saw as outside meddling, going as far as to shut USAID out entirely. Its reacceptance of the agency today signals a shift, but not without a sense of hesitation.
Also Read; Russia Strikes Ukraine’s Power Plant
Amid Winter
Local watchdog groups are already calling for transparency and firm guarantees that development won’t come with political strings attached.
The re-entry comes at a time when these countries remain deeply vulnerable. In Lebanon, an economic crisis has hollowed out public services. In Somalia, sporadic conflict continues to upend daily life. In Syria and Iraq, entire communities are still recovering from war. And in Jordan and Ecuador, the cost of living and unemployment remain stubborn challenges.
To USAID’s credit, the agency insists that this new chapter will be different—that the mistakes of the past won’t be repeated. Officials promise to work in partnership with local actors, respecting each country’s sovereignty and cultural fabric. They say the mission is simple: to help where help is needed, without an agenda.
But trust, as ever, is earned—not declared. Whether USAID can truly operate as a neutral development partner in places where its name still evokes controversy remains to be seen. The world will be watching, and so will the people whose lives hang in the balance.
