At the same time, the Trump administration is pursuing historic cuts to foreign aid. They project these reductions as the cornerstone of their domestic and foreign policy agenda. These cuts are intended to slash government spending as part of a larger strategy. They warned about their unintended consequences in shaping international relations and hindering humanitarian aid.
In February, the administration announced plans so severe that they would cancel essentially all foreign aid contracts from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This important decision will severely affect global health initiatives and international development programs. The United States has given just under $60 billion in total aid. The administration’s cuts provide just a fraction of those savings when stacked up against the national deficit.
The foreign aid coup de grâce may come from a powerful Trump administration strategy dubbed “pocket rescission.” This tool has allowed the president to propose canceling money—money that Congress has already approved—appropriated funds, as established in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. The next-to-last time this tactic was used was in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. This last approach is the one the administration claims to be legally permissible. Specifically, they are requesting that the Supreme Court intercede to prevent unwarranted lower court decisions that have upheld foreign aid spending.
Critics have stressed that these cuts would do irreparable damage to America’s reputation abroad. They are concerned that vital global health efforts, including those focused on combating HIV and AIDS, will be the victims. Cutting foreign aid will most certainly deprive millions of people of uninterrupted food provision and development support. This predicament will only compound the hardships for fragile states already on the frontlines of climate change.
The funding Trump administration has also recently advocated drastic cuts in funding for the arts. In July, to win bipartisan congressional support for rescissions, with $9 billion in aid cuts. This pattern highlights a concerted effort to redirect U.S. foreign assistance to further the administration’s fiscal priorities.
Foreign aid advocates are anxious about what these deep cuts could mean. They worry that reduced federal funding would erode advancements in important fields like public health and poverty reduction. Advocates and critics alike have cautioned that these cuts endanger decades-old diplomatic ties. They would fuel greater instability in areas that are highly vulnerable due to their reliance on U.S. support.