Tuesday marked the last official day for USAID, the State Department’s foreign aid program created by President John F. Kennedy in 1963 with help from a prominent Mainer (more on that in a moment).

Combining several smaller, largely ineffective remnants from the Marshall Plan that had helped rebuild Europe from the ashes of World War II, USAID became one of the most admired agencies of its kind. It delivered both humanitarian aid and economic development assistance as our leading source of “soft power,” complementing America’s undoubted military might.

Following Kennedy’s too-brief administration, it earned support from five Republican and four Democratic administrations, and bipartisan backing in Congress.

Then came the current administration. It was the very first target of the reelected president, who said the agency was run by “radical lunatics” — they are career civil service employees serving under a dozen consecutive secretaries of state — while Elon Musk dubbed it a “criminal organization.”

On the agency’s last day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said a “streamlined” version under his direct control would soon debut as “America First.” This turns the whole purpose of the agency upside down in this administration’s typical “up is down” and “black is white” approach to policymaking.

An online forum featured perhaps the first direct criticism of President Donald Trump from the only living former Republican president, George W. Bush, who asked employees, “Is it in our national interests that 25 million people who would have died now live? I think it is, and so do you.”

Bush, president from 2001-09, was referring to his landmark HIV/AIDS relief program, which used USAID’s capacity to distribute to Africa and elsewhere, at little or no cost, previously expensive drugs that are still the only relief from HIV; there is no vaccine. Even Democrats skeptical of Bush’s commitment came around to active support.

His successor, Democratic President Barack Obama, who promoted “soft power” more effectively perhaps than any other post-war president, called Trump’s decision “a colossal mistake,” adding that “Gutting USAID is a travesty, and it’s a tragedy. Because it’s some of the most important work happening anywhere in the world.” Obama said USAID not only saved countless lives, but helped increase economic growth in previously poor countries, turning them from aid recipients into U.S. trading partners.

With this long track record of success, why did USAID earn Trump’s particular ire? To understand why, it helps to go back to its beginnings.

Locked in the Cold War with the former Soviet Union, then at its peak with the building of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy saw scant room for military countermeasures, but he did want to convince our European allies we were still on their side.

Former Maine Congressman Frank Coffin, a political thinker with a pragmatic streak, was among several State Department officials tasked with devising a new concept for the ad hoc aid programs the department oversaw. The recommendation was sweeping consolidation, with insulation from partisan political pressures that are inevitable whenever an international emergency demands a U.S. response.

That may be what offended Trump the most. For the 45th and 47th president, all transactions are “deals” with a winner and loser. Altruistic gestures — such as foreign assistance without immediate repayment that make sense and buttress America’s long-term interests — are anathema.

His spending priorities are clear. The foreign aid budget last year was $40 billion. Musk targeted a 6% reduction in defense spending, then $848 billion, but that was then.

Trump actually proposed a $113 billion defense increase — three times the USAID budget — and congressional Republicans added $37 billion more. At a cool $1 trillion, defense spending will amount to 25 times that of foreign aid; its remaining budget is undetermined.

Criticism from the former presidents was covered straightforwardly on most news sites, but the New York Times, former bastion of the “liberal establishment,” reported only that they “commended” the employees and left it at that.

Secretary of State Rubio had also supported USAID as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, so after the initial Trump-Musk assault, there was some hope Rubio would resist. He learned, however, that complete fealty is the only path for those serving Trump.

It’s a dark, brutal world out there for those creating the new “America First” program — now a prominent theme for the first time since isolationists in the 1930s tried, even after Hitler’s and Mussolini’s takeovers of previously democratic nations, to keep the U.S. from aiding the resistance.

Former President Obama told employees that “sooner or later, leaders on both sides of the aisle will realize how much you are needed.”

That day will come, some day.