Elon Musk Pulled the Plug on America’s Energy Soft Power

Elon Musk has put the U.S. Agency for International Development through the woodchipper of his de facto department this week in the name of “efficiency.” The move — which began with a Day One executive order by President Trump demanding a review of all U.S. foreign aid that was subsequently handed off to Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — has resulted in the layoff or furloughing of hundreds of USAID employees, as well as imperiled the health of babies and toddlers receiving medical care in Sudan, the operations of independent media outlets working in or near despotic regimes, and longtime AIDS and malaria prevention campaigns credited with saving some 35 million lives. (The State Department, which has assumed control of the formerly independent agency, has since announced a “confounding waiver process … [to] get lifesaving programs back online,” ProPublica reports.) Chaos and panic reign among USAID employees and the agency’s partner organizations around the globe.

The alarming shifts have also cast enormous uncertainty over the future of USAID’s many clean energy programs, threatening to leave U.S. allies quite literally in the dark. “There are other sources of foreign assistance — the State Department and the Defense Department have different programs — but USAID, this is what they do,” Tom Ellison, the deputy director for the Center for Climate and Security, a nonpartisan think tank, told me. “It is central and not easily replaced.”

In addition to “saving and improving lives around the world in an altruistic sense,” USAID has “a lot of benefits for U.S. national interests and national security,” Ellison went on. Though USAID dates back to the Cold War, its Power Africa initiative launched under President Barack Obama in 2013, and energy investment projects around the world followed. Of its $42.8 billion budget request for 2025, the agency had earmarked $4.1 billion for global infrastructure and investment programs, including energy security and excluding its additional targeted energy investment in Ukraine.

Some of these benefits are immediate and obvious. For example, USAID invested $422 million in new energy infrastructure in Ukraine, including more than a thousand generators and a solar and battery storage project, all to brace against Russia’s weaponized flow of fossil fuels. (USAID was also reviewing the deployment of Musk’s Starlink Satellite Terminals to the Ukrainian government prior to his gutting of the agency, per The Lever.)

But USAID is in the power business for other strategic reasons, too. USAID initiatives such as assisting Georgia and Kosovo in running their first renewable energy auctions help to secure energy stability and independence among countries where Russia is trying to gain sway. By the same token, rural electrification efforts in Africa help the U.S. remain a leader on the continent even as China is looking to make inroads. “China’s infrastructure and assistance programs around the world, like the Belt and Road Initiative — they consider that very explicitly a lever to peel U.S. allies away,” Ellison said. “Russian propagandists are already cheering the potential shutdown of USAID or a cut to their programs, for those reasons.”

Likewise, USAID has also rolled out energy projects in Indonesia, helping to deploy rooftop solar plants at airports and investing $200 million into a geothermal plant and two hydropower plants. Such efforts in the Indo-Pacific “pay dividends in strengthening relationships with allies and partners critical to that competition with China,” the Council on Strategic Risks, the parent institute of the Center for Climate and Security, wrote in a memo Tuesday.

That’s part of what makes the USAID whiplash so severe. Not only is the concern and uncertainty of the agency’s shutdown in complete opposition to the administration’s purported goal of “efficiency,” but Trump’s knee-jerk reaction to anything that suggests the idea of a U.S. handout — much less one that includes programs explicitly addressing “climate change” — runs counter to his stated goals of protecting U.S. troops and national security interests. USAID programs “are very cost-effective investments in terms of being a cent or less on the U.S. taxpayer dollars,” Ellison told me. “They’re paying for themselves over and over again in terms of humanitarian or military spending averted in the future.”