In a dramatic reshaping of U.S. foreign policy and global engagement, President Donald Trump’s administration has unveiled sweeping changes that reverberate from the halls of the United Nations to the laboratories of Silicon Valley and the streets of Havana. According to Reuters, an official notification sent to Congress on September 12, 2025, outlined the administration’s intent to reallocate $1.8 billion in foreign aid toward "America First" priorities, with $400 million specifically earmarked to confront the “Marxist and anti-American” regimes of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
This move comes as part of a broader strategy that has seen the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the dismissal of thousands of employees, and deep cuts to humanitarian programs. Since the start of Trump’s second term in January 2025, the administration has shifted the focus of U.S. foreign assistance away from traditional aid and toward what it calls strategic investment, competition with China, and direct pressure on governments deemed hostile to Washington.
The official document, reviewed by Reuters, states, “The national security interests of the United States require that these funds be used to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.” The notification details that, in addition to the $400 million targeting Latin America, another portion will support energy development in Ukraine and economic projects in Greenland—both regions seen as strategically significant for U.S. interests in minerals and global influence.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, tapped by Trump at the start of his second term, defended the new direction, saying in July 2025, “We are abandoning a charitable model to focus on empowering countries and their sustainable development.” The State Department has echoed this sentiment, stating that new foreign assistance programs must “prioritize trade over aid, opportunity over dependence, and investment over assistance.”
But the shakeup hasn’t gone unchallenged. Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticized the reallocation as a subversion of Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending. “Funding politically driven, unaccountable, pet projects in places like Greenland or using aid to pressure African governments on immigration is out of step with America’s foreign policy interests and an abuse of Americans’ tax dollars,” she said in a statement, as reported by Reuters.
This overhaul marks a radical departure from the longstanding U.S. reliance on soft power—leveraging food, medical, and economic assistance to build alliances and influence abroad. Instead, the Trump administration’s approach centers on aggressive geopolitical competition, particularly with China, and a willingness to use foreign aid as a lever to advance U.S. interests or punish adversaries.
For Cuba, the implications are profound. The regime in Havana, already reeling from economic collapse, the repression of civic protests, and growing international isolation, now faces a reinvigorated U.S. campaign of diplomatic and economic pressure. As Reuters notes, the restoration of funds to independent media in Cuba is expected to challenge the regime’s control over information, while broader economic and diplomatic measures are likely to intensify.
Beyond Latin America, the administration’s foreign aid redirection includes significant investments in Europe. The notification specifies support for energy and critical minerals programming in Ukraine and economic development in Greenland. Trump’s interest in Greenland—rich in oil, natural gas, and minerals crucial for high-tech industries—has been widely reported, with the president previously expressing a desire for the U.S. to "take control" of the semi-autonomous Danish territory.
Meanwhile, the administration’s America First philosophy was on full display at the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2025. According to GeneOnline, Trump’s speech was marked by skepticism toward alliances, dismissiveness of multilateral institutions, and a focus on personal victories. He told world leaders, “I’ve been right about everything,” while mocking the UN for offering him little more than a broken escalator. The speech offered scant direction on pressing global challenges such as Ukraine, climate change, or public health, reinforcing a message that alliances are transactional and U.S. interests come first.
Back in Washington, the administration quietly imposed a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications—a move that has sent shockwaves through the healthcare, biotech, and tech sectors. The H-1B program has long been a lifeline for hospitals, research labs, and startups, supplying international talent crucial for innovation. The new fee, as GeneOnline reports, threatens to disrupt this pipeline, particularly for startups and smaller companies that may struggle to absorb the added cost.
This policy shift comes at a precarious time for the U.S. healthcare system. The Association of American Medical Colleges projects a deficit of up to 124,000 physicians by 2034—a gap that could widen if visa restrictions choke off the flow of international medical graduates, many of whom serve in rural and underserved areas.
Compounding these challenges, the administration has hinted at new tariffs on medical imports. The American Hospital Association has warned that higher prices for essentials like personal protective equipment (PPE) and syringes will further strain hospital budgets, which are already stretched thin. The biotech supply chain, too, depends on global inputs—from genetic sequencers assembled with Asian components to reagents sourced from Europe. Tariffs could slow research, raise drug development costs, and force startups to make tough choices between investing in innovation or paying higher import fees.
The international reaction has been swift. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has strengthened its position as a stable partner for multinational clinical trials, attracting activity that might otherwise have taken place in the U.S. According to the EMA’s 2024 Annual Report, the agency has enhanced international collaboration to harmonize regulatory requirements and facilitate access to multiple markets. Meanwhile, China is accelerating its efforts to become a global biotech leader, offering state-backed funding, infrastructure, and incentives to attract displaced talent and companies. India, too, is poised to absorb returning scientists and clinicians, bolstering its biotech hubs in Bengaluru and Hyderabad.
For U.S. startups and industry leaders, the future feels uncertain. The combination of visa restrictions, tariff threats, and a transactional diplomatic posture challenges America’s longstanding leadership in science and innovation. As GeneOnline puts it, “The biotech sector thrives on openness—ideas, capital, and people flow across borders. Trump’s policies, framed by his UN speech, introduce barriers on all three fronts.”
Even as the administration touts the benefits of prioritizing trade and investment over traditional aid, critics warn that the U.S. risks ceding its position as the world’s preeminent hub for innovation and humanitarian leadership. The coming months will test whether America’s new direction can deliver on its promises—or whether the rest of the world will seize the opportunity to fill the void.
