Washington — The Trump administration has revealed plans to drastically cut U.S. foreign aid, eliminating more than 90% of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts and halting approximately $60 billion in global assistance. This move not only outlines the administration's intent to overhaul foreign aid but also poses significant challenges for many humanitarian projects currently active abroad.
The $60 billion cut, disclosed through internal memos acquired by the Associated Press, marks one of the most substantial reductions of U.S. foreign assistance programs to date. It is expected to leave only minimal USAID projects intact, hampering the initiatives aimed at stabilizing economies and fostering alliances abroad.
The administration’s directive reflects longstanding beliefs held by President Donald Trump and his ally, businessman Elon Musk. They argue foreign aid has perpetuated what they call a liberal agenda, asserting it frequently contributes to waste. According to officials, the cuts are part of efforts to “clear significant waste stemming from decades of institutional drift.”
On January 20, just following the initial announcements, President Trump mandated what he described as a comprehensive review of U.S. foreign assistance, which he ordered should conclude within 90 days. Meanwhile, funding for thousands of U.S.-funded programs worldwide has been completely frozen. This means initiatives credited for containing the Ebola outbreak and providing HIV/AIDS treatment to millions are indefinitely cut off from USAID funding.
The administration's blitz on foreign aid has garnered intense criticism. “The American people deserve a transparent accounting of what will be lost—on counterterror, global health, food security, and competition,” said the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, representing numerous businesses and NGOs. This sentiment resonates broadly among proponents of international aid who warn of dire consequences for global health and security.
Further compounding the situation, reports are surfacing about expedited termination of contracts where nonprofits are owed millions, as revealed through federal court filings. Nonprofits allege the Trump administration, alongside Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, has used these rapid terminations to sidestep compliance with court orders meant to halt the funding freeze.
A USAID official notified staff about the impending cuts, stating, “There are MANY more terminations coming, so please gear up!” This prediction of extensive layoffs and cutbacks is alarming for the many contractors lined up to assist with international development.
The State Department memo outlining these cuts first emerged from reports by the Washington Free Beacon and highlights the urgency of the administration's actions. Noting the need for rapid movement, the memo emphasized targeting vast arrays of USAID programs and State Department grants as part of this new directive.
Meanwhile, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy remarked on the bluster of the administration's cuts, accusing officials of trying to “blow through Congress and the courts” as they complete their so-called review processes.
This sweeping overhaul is said to include the elimination of 5,800 out of 6,200 multiyear USAID contracts—an estimated loss of $54 billion. An additional 4,100 out of 9,100 State Department grants will see cuts totaling $4.4 billion. Such unprecedented changes not only threaten the fabric of already strained humanitarian programs—many battling against time and resource shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic—but also underline potential precarious shifts within U.S. foreign policy.
Assessing the ramifications of these cuts, leaders dedicated to international health and humanitarian work are raising alarms about lost contributions to efforts like Ebola response and AIDS treatment for over 20 million lives. With many efforts only recently established, the decision to terminate promised foreign aid has left communities yearning for continued support.
Despite the Trump administration’s rationale for cuts—emphasizing cost reduction and taxpayer benefit—many advocates question the consequences on humanitarian grounds. The broader narrative poses serious inquiries about U.S. interests abroad. Critics question how the administration plans to stabilize regions now dependent on aid without significant U.S. engagement.
Even as the Supreme Court steps in to review the legality of these extensive cuts, the fallout from the decisions made will reverberate beyond immediate financial losses. With missions stalled and lives hanging in the balance, critics urge the government to reconsider the dire impacts of such sweeping changes to aid.
Continuing to watch the fallout surrounding these decisions, experts and lawmakers alike express hopes for restoring balances within foreign policy priorities. While Trump’s motives may focus on reductions and efficiency, the collateral damage to allies and aid organizations cannot be overlooked.