In assessing the current effort of Elon Musk and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reduce the U.S. Agency for International Development to perhaps just 300 or so officials handling humanitarian aid, I urge as a retired U.S. ambassador — and a local wheat farmer — careful reconsideration. There is much to commend it. And much will be lost in dismantling it so drastically.

When I joined the Foreign Service in 1961, President John F. Kennedy had just established USAID through Congress on the basis that with great power comes great responsibility for looking like a force for good in the world. Indeed, we wanted to be a contrast to growing Soviet influence around the world. And until today, the U.S. has provided the most humanitarian assistance in the world at a cost of less than 1% of our annual budget.

I served in Asia and Africa 1961-96 and witnessed the good work of USAID in seven posts. It was exemplified in projects for economic development, disaster relief, health programs, education promotion and reforms that created investment opportunities and markets. Recall, for example, that a major USAID recipient, South Korea, is now America’s sixth-largest trade partner.

I also am rare in having already seen the effect in bilateral relations of closing out an entire USAID program when I was ambassador to Cameroon. The United States government did this in the 1990s because of displeasure with Cameroon’s unfair election procedure. However, the effect of sudden USAID project closures was of hurting, not the government, but their citizens in need of help. And the longer consequence was sacrificing much of our contact with and knowledge of the country and our influence in furthering U.S. policy objectives.

If USAID is abolished, economic consequences in the U.S. apply as well. This is because USAID works primarily through American businesses and nongovernmental organizations to carry out its work. In addition, U.S. law requires the majority of USAID-funded goods and services be sourced from U.S. vendors who are already feeling the impact of suspension.

Moreover, as a wheat farmer, I’m hoping for the survival of USAID’s Food for Peace Program. Since the 1950s, Pacific Northwest wheat producers have welcomed exporting our soft white Pacific Northwest wheat under this program. Using American grown wheat in food aid programs keeps showcasing the quality and value of our U.S. wheat abroad.

China and Russia have reacted with glee to the denigration of USAID. Russia in particular is spreading outrageous falsehoods about USAID through our social media. While I don’t believe either country would replace our humanitarian assistance if we close USAID, they will clearly exploit it as declining U.S. world involvement. It boosts their argument in favor of their competing concepts of world domination.

It is one thing to modernize and streamline an organization. It’s quite another step to gut an organization. I would assume that Musk may well be seeking to use artificial intelligence potential to replace USAID jobs. Certainly AI is blossoming as a most useful tool in business and government. But let’s remember the key contribution remains people and their creativity and experience. AI depends after all on data input, and we won’t have informed input if we keep downsizing our agencies working overseas.

I would argue that we should keep USAID as an institution for our image and benefit as a great power democracy and, importantly, for the human contact with other societies to better inform our foreign policy. It takes continuing education, training and experience for the successful running of its diverse programs. And those programs serve our U.S. interests. If USAID disappears, we will discourage a younger generation eager to work at home and abroad in many fields on behalf of America. Let’s not abolish it.