One of Donald Trump’s first executive orders on his return to the White House was to issue a pause in foreign assistance, which was followed by a “stop work” order on most foreign aid funding. Sarah Bermeo writes that while US aid programs need reform, Trump’s actions to freeze and dismantle aid go against the explicit wishes of Congress and most Americans. Stopping aid funding for 90 days could do enormous damage to local implementing agencies, damage which may not be easily reversed.
Since his return to the White House on January 20th, Donald Trump has declared that “America is Back,” flexing the full power of the presidency to take on such national security threats as Canada, Panama, and people dependent on foreign aid: those starving in refugee camps, babies in need of medicine, and smallholder farmers trying to avoid the necessity of migration by increasing the yields on their land.
This is a spectacular display of weakness masquerading as strength – lashing out at friendly countries and vulnerable people – and a complete sidestepping of the outcomes President Trump promised to deliver during the 2024 election campaign, such as ending the war in Ukraine on day one of his presidency, immediately bringing down prices, and cutting the cost of new homes in half. Nowhere is this more visible than the attack Elon Musk, President Trump, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have launched on foreign aid. There are strong arguments in favor of reform at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency which administers foreign and development aid, but freezing Congressionally allocated funds and dismantling an institution mandated by Congress is unlawful, inefficient, and will cost lives.
Dismantled by decree
On inauguration day, Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for a “pause” in foreign assistance, which makes up about one percent of the federal budget. Secretary Rubio issued a “stop work” order on January 24th for almost all foreign aid funding. This meant that ongoing programs – including those providing services in some of the poorest and most fragile areas of the world – had to stop work. Immediately. After initial pushback, Rubio ordered that life-saving programs continue, although widespread confusion exists regarding which programs are indeed allowed to operate. The government has now taken down the USAID website, laid off senior administrators, closed the headquarters building to staff, and named Rubio as Acting Director of USAID. This has led to protests from Democratic lawmakers.
Foreign policy objectives of aid have always been enshrined in law
There is nothing revolutionary in the administration’s claim that foreign aid should serve the interests of the American people. Foreign aid has always been an instrument of foreign policy; I study the evolution of goals pursued with aid in my 2018 book, Targeted Development. In 1947, President Truman announced the Marshall Plan, which was approved by Congress with bipartisan support. Its purpose was “to promote world peace and the general welfare, national interest, and foreign policy of the United States.” In 1961, newly elected President Kennedy gave a special address to Congress asking for major structural reforms to aid, noting that “no objective supporter of foreign aid can be satisfied with the existing program.” Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, to “promote the foreign policy, security, and general welfare of the United States;” the Act authorized the creation of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
President George W. Bush also asked for major changes in foreign aid to meet foreign policy goals. Announcing the creation of the Millennium Challenge Account in 2002, Bush argued that it would serve US interests because “when governments fail to meet the most basic needs of their people, these failed states can become havens for terror.” He justified the new organization by arguing that “many of the old models of economic development assistance are outdated,” and Congress approved the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003. President Bush also announced major funding to combat HIV/AIDS globally in his 2003 State of the Union address; following this, Congress authorized the creation of the President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
The executive order issued by President Trump and the subsequent actions to dismantle USAID are a blatant attack on laws passed by Congress. Trump’s order states that “It is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.” Countries have foreign policies, people – including the president – have foreign policy goals or preferences. There is no “foreign policy of the President of the United States;” there is foreign policy of the United States of America. This is crafted through back-and-forth negotiations between Congress and the President, and these have created the foreign aid institutions that exist today.
“Workers at the IOM Emergency Supply Ware” (CC BY-NC 2.0) by USAID_IMAGES
No “mandate” to dismantle aid
Trump justifies his use of executive orders, rather than working with Congress, by claiming a mandate from the American people. The people elect both Congress and the President. There is no separate mandate for the presidency. Congress has repeatedly supported foreign aid. In November, Trump won 49.8 percent of the popular vote, a lower percentage than most of his predecessors. At the same time all 435 Members of the House of Representatives were elected, ninety-eight percent with larger winning margins than Trump. President Trump has the second lowest approval rating at inauguration, 47 percent, of any presidency since 1953; only his own first term had lower approval. On foreign aid, surveys show that sixty-two percent of Americans believe economic aid is an effective foreign policy tool. There is no mandate to override Congressionally approved foreign aid policy.
Reform could improve efficiency, but current actions are destructive
As was true in the time of Kennedy or Bush, there is room for improvement in the US foreign aid system. If Rubio had announced a ninety-day review of aid without cutting off funding and dismantling the system, there would have been a line of experts ready to advise on substantial reforms. There has been a concerted push for USAID to work directly with local partners to improve efficiency, rather than channelling grants through US-based for-profit organizations that are less knowledgeable regarding local conditions and significantly more costly. I have argued that increasing the percentage of aid directed toward agricultural programs would allow more farmers to remain on their land, aligning with US efforts to decrease migration. Despite these and multiple other calls for change, there is widespread consensus that much of the paused funding is essential and effective in global efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, vaccinate children, improve food security, feed people in refugee camps, provide early warning of famines, and achieve other goals.
Secretary Rubio has said that some USAID programs “should continue.” But the damage caused by ninety days without funding and dismantling USAID cannot be reversed just by turning the funding back on. If local implementing agencies have disbanded due to lack of resources, they cannot be easily re-established. If employees have moved to new jobs, they cannot be easily rehired. Significant local and institutional knowledge is lost. If farmers do not get seed, fertilizer, or agricultural advice at the right point in the growing season, they cannot simply correct this later; the resulting loss of harvest will increase food insecurity for a year or more. If a child dies from a preventable or treatable condition, it cannot be brought back to life.
Breaking things is not governing. Using executive orders to avoid the difficult work of crafting and promoting foreign policy proposals is not strength. A bully punches down, picking on the less powerful. This is counterproductive: the victim gets hurt, and the bully looks weak. Powerful states like Russia and China do not fear the Trump administration. Families displaced by war, people suffering from disease and food insecurity, and those living on less than two dollars a day may now be even more scared for their lives.
- Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eUJ
