The United States has taken a dramatic step by freezing nearly all foreign assistance worldwide, a move that has sent shockwaves through humanitarian sectors and raised concerns about the future of global stability.
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order freezing foreign aid for a period of 90 days. This order has been implemented swiftly, with the US State Department directing its diplomats to immediately cease ongoing assistance programs and halt new aid disbursements. The decision, widely seen as an attempt to reshape US foreign policy and reduce governmental spending, has sent alarm bells ringing among aid organizations, as the US has historically been the world’s largest humanitarian donor.
The Scope of the Freeze
Secretary of State Marco Rubio outlined the executive order in a cable sent to US diplomatic missions around the world. The cable, obtained by CNN, called for an immediate “stop work” order on existing foreign aid programs and imposed a freeze on all new aid allocations. This halt covers both financial assistance programs from the State Department and initiatives from the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
The freeze is set to have widespread ramifications, affecting numerous critical aid programs worldwide. While some exemptions exist, including emergency food aid and military financing for Israel and Egypt, no similar provisions have been made for countries like Ukraine or Taiwan, which also receive significant US military assistance.
Humanitarian Officials React with Alarm
The response from global humanitarian groups has been swift and severe. One senior humanitarian official described the freeze as “incredibly disruptive” and warned that it could have catastrophic effects on efforts to combat health crises, poverty, and conflict. The official, who wished to remain anonymous, emphasized that the immediate halt to foreign assistance would severely limit critical programs already in place, particularly in countries facing severe health challenges and poverty.
Another aid worker stated, “We were expecting some adjustments or cuts, but not this immediate, sweeping freeze. The needs are too urgent. Many of the most vulnerable nations rely heavily on US aid, and pulling the plug on this support could leave millions without the assistance they desperately need.”
A Policy Shift in Washington
The executive order comes on the heels of a series of criticisms from Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials about the US foreign aid program. These critics have long argued that foreign assistance is inefficient and fails to align with US interests. President Trump, in justifying the freeze, reiterated his stance that much of the US foreign aid infrastructure is misaligned with American values and goals, declaring that the “foreign aid industry” needs a major overhaul.
Trump’s executive order also highlights the administration’s broader approach to international aid, which aims to reassess whether current assistance programs align with his administration’s foreign policy priorities. A review process is now underway, and decisions regarding whether to continue or terminate aid programs will be based on this evaluation. The review is expected to take up to 85 days, with a determination on the future of each program made thereafter.
The Global Impact
The United States’ suspension of foreign aid has triggered deep concerns among countries that rely on this assistance for development, healthcare, and humanitarian relief. For instance, US-funded health initiatives, such as those focused on combating the spread of diseases like malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis, have been crucial to saving lives across Africa and Asia. The freeze threatens to derail years of progress in these areas, especially in countries that lack the resources to fund these critical efforts on their own.
Dr. Thomas Roberts, a leading health expert with a global aid organization, stated, “Global health programs funded by the US have had bipartisan support for decades. They have been essential in preventing pandemics and improving healthcare in some of the world’s poorest countries. To see such a blanket freeze at a time when global health needs are so acute is a tragedy.”
The Politics Behind the Freeze
While many American lawmakers, including those from both major political parties, have expressed support for specific aid initiatives, the Trump administration’s stance has garnered considerable backing from conservative factions in Congress. These lawmakers argue that reducing foreign aid spending is essential to ensuring that the US government prioritizes domestic issues such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
However, the freeze’s timing raises questions about its long-term impact on US diplomacy and international relations. For countries like Nigeria, which receives significant US assistance for counterterrorism and development programs, the freeze may signal a shift in the US’s role on the global stage. “The US is no longer seen as a reliable partner in global development, and this could harm our diplomatic relations in the long run,” said a Nigerian official who requested anonymity.
A Strategic Pause or Global Setback?
The justification for the freeze, as outlined in the executive order, revolves around the need to ensure that foreign assistance programs serve US national interests. The Trump administration has argued that many programs have not delivered tangible results that align with US strategic goals. However, this shift in policy could have profound consequences on global stability, especially in regions facing political instability, war, and poverty.
The freezing of foreign aid also comes at a time when the world is grappling with numerous global challenges, including climate change, refugee crises, and the ongoing fight against infectious diseases. Aid organizations, humanitarian workers, and governments are concerned that the US’s withdrawal from its leadership role in global assistance may embolden other nations to reduce their commitments as well, exacerbating the challenges faced by vulnerable populations.
