LVIV – The Trump administration has caused an uproar following its directive to suspend nearly all foreign aid programs for 90 days, leaving organizations and governments reliant on U.S. assistance scrambling for alternative funding. The situation has become particularly urgent for Ukraine, where the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) announced the halting of all its projects and expenditures pending reviews ordered by the State Department. This freeze, effective January 25, will predominantly affect programs supporting schools, hospitals, and energy infrastructure throughout Ukraine.
While military aid, which remains untouched, is of significant focus, top officials and non-governmental organizations are expressing concern over what this pause could mean for humanitarian efforts and reconstruction. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy clarified during a press conference following the announcement, stating, “I know there are a lot of institutions around the world… I am focused on military aid. It is not stopped, thank God.” This confidence, noted by Zelenskyy, is pivotal, but many worry it will not be enough to offset the broader impact on other aid initiatives.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the freeze, announcing its basis lies within the need to audit existing foreign assistance programs to determine if they serve American interests. He noted, “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified by answering three questions: ‘Does this make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?’” This remark coincides with America’s shifting approach to aid under the Trump administration’s “America First” policy.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), reflecting on the determination to safeguard U.S. interests, expressed hope during his interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” asserting, “It needs to be temporary. Because we have, like, Russia invading Ukraine, and we need to respond to it.” His comments align with sentiments shared by various diplomatic efforts to carve out exceptions for programs supporting Ukraine, Taiwan, and other allies facing geopolitical pressures.
Yet these exceptions are still uncertain. On January 28, Iryna Vereshchuk, deputy head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, labeled this decision “unexpected and unpleasant news,” indicating the immediate ramifications of this freeze. Ukrainian officials have begun consultations with their U.S. counterparts to seek clarity on which programs may be affected by the freeze and how best to continue their humanitarian response. Vereshchuk stated, “We will begin substantive consultations with our American partners to continue funding humanitarian response projects… as soon as possible.”
Organizations affected by the freeze are already feeling the impact. Veteran Hub, led by Ivona Kostyna, was forced to close its Veterans Support Line, citing the suspension as crippling for its operations. Meanwhile, contractors have started receiving notices to halt their work immediately, highlighting the disruption to various programs aimed at fostering development and support.
Watchful of these developments, Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has actively sought clarification on the freeze. Heorhiy Tykhyi, spokesperson for the ministry, reassured, “We are confident we can respond adequately if any funding programs are subject to this review.” The Ukrainian government hopes their past audits of international assistance, which demonstrated transparency and responsible management, will favorably influence the Trump's administration’s reassessment.
Meanwhile, Kenyatta’s remarks have sparked significant discussion about self-sufficiency among African countries post-U.S. aid freeze. The former Kenyan president voiced concerns over dependency, stating, “We should ask ourselves since the funding has been suspended what we should do to bridge the gap.” This awakening call for independent support models resonates strongly with criticisms of foreign aid dependency and heightens the urgency for sustainable local strategies.
Finally, Trump's executive order positioned foreign aid as inconsistent with American values and interests, creating uncertainty across the spectrum of nations reliant on U.S. support. With exceptions carved out for military funding to allies such as Israel and Egypt, the question remains—what will become of the broader support to countries like Ukraine and Taiwan, as they navigate this unpredictable terrain? The conversation around foreign assistance has truly taken on new significance, reflecting the complex interplay of national interests, global stability, and the humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations.