USAID’s Dismantling and the Spread of Ebola
In his book self described USAID – In March 2025, Nicholas Enrich held the position of top U.S. official overseeing global health initiatives. At the time, two critical events were unfolding simultaneously: the Trump administration was actively dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and an Ebola outbreak was escalating in Uganda. Enrich’s role was to coordinate the federal response to the health crisis, but he quickly realized the challenges of doing so under the new administration’s scrutiny.
The administration’s rationale for downsizing USAID centered on accusations of inefficiency, political bias, and a desire to align foreign aid with “American First” priorities. Enrich, however, disputes these claims, arguing that the agency was not merely wasteful but a highly effective institution. He describes the decision to shutter USAID as driven by individuals who lacked a fundamental understanding of its mission and the vital work it accomplished. “They didn’t know what the agency did,” he says in a recent interview with NPR, “and they were there to tear it down for the sole purpose of satisfying the ego of a billionaire.”
A Book on the Collapse of USAID
One year after the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle USAID, Enrich has released a book titled *Into the Woodchipper*, a phrase borrowed from Elon Musk’s vision for the agency. The title symbolizes the relentless destruction of USAID, which Enrich describes as a civil servant who served under four presidential administrations before being sidelined after leaking internal memos outlining plans to dismantle the organization.
The book serves as a detailed account of how the agency was eroded from within. Enrich highlights the political appointees who dictated its direction, often prioritizing short-term goals over long-term global health outcomes. “The administration was focused on quick fixes,” he explains, “not understanding that USAID’s role was foundational in preventing pandemics and saving lives.” He emphasizes that the agency’s budget, which accounted for less than 1% of the federal budget, had a profound impact over two decades, saving 92 million lives worldwide. This efficiency, he argues, was not the reason for its dismantling but rather a point of contention for those who viewed it as a target for ideological attack.
Leaking Memos and the Cost of Dissent
Enrich’s decision to leak memos about USAID’s restructuring led to his immediate placement on administrative leave. Reflecting on this, he admits to feeling unprepared for the confrontation. “I was a career civil servant, not an activist,” he says. “I didn’t realize how quickly the agency’s mission could be undermined by political decisions.” His regret is palpable when discussing the choices he made during his final months at USAID. He recalls implementing directives that he now views as detrimental, such as removing Ebola response efforts from the list of approved initiatives.
One of the most striking moments in his account comes when he recalls a political appointee’s dismissal of the virus. “They called Ebola a fraud,” Enrich says, “and I was told to stop advocating for it. I made a mistake by agreeing to those terms, even though I knew it would weaken the U.S. response.” This decision, he believes, was a direct consequence of the administration’s lack of understanding about the agency’s role in combating global health threats. “Every time I tried to push back, I was met with resistance. It felt like the whole system was working against us.”
Legacy and Lessons from the Dismantling
Despite the chaos, Enrich insists that USAID’s dissolution had lasting consequences for global health. “The agency was the backbone of our international efforts,” he notes. “Without it, we lost the ability to respond swiftly to outbreaks like Ebola.” He points to the current crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a stark example of this reality. The outbreak, now the worst in over a decade, has exposed the vulnerabilities created by the agency’s decline. “USAID was there to provide stability, but now we’re scrambling to pick up the pieces,” he says.
Enrich’s perspective on the agency’s role in the Ebola response extends beyond the immediate crisis. He highlights USAID’s proactive approach to disease prevention, which included funding research, training local health workers, and establishing supply chains for medical equipment. “These efforts were not just about treating patients,” he explains. “They were about building resilient systems that could withstand future outbreaks.” The Uganda outbreak, he argues, was a warning sign of what could happen if such systems were left underfunded and understaffed.
In his book, Enrich also addresses the broader implications of the Trump administration’s actions. “They saw USAID as a relic of the past,” he says, “but it was actually a bridge to the future.” He criticizes the political appointments that replaced seasoned officials with individuals unqualified to manage the complexities of global health programs. “They didn’t have the expertise, but they had the power to reshape the agency’s mission,” he adds.
Looking ahead, Enrich hopes his book will spark a renewed appreciation for USAID’s contributions. “The world is still facing outbreaks, and we need a strong, independent agency to respond,” he says. “Otherwise, we’re just handing the problem to the next administration to fix.” His account, he believes, is not just a critique of the past but a call to action for the future. “Into the woodchipper” may be the fate of USAID, but he remains hopeful that its legacy will endure in the face of ongoing challenges.
This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity, but Enrich’s arguments remain sharp and focused. His journey from a dedicated public servant to a vocal critic of the agency’s dismantling offers a compelling narrative of the intersection between politics and public health. As the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to grow, his insights serve as a reminder of the critical role USAID played—and continues to play—in safeguarding global health.
