Image Source: Getty
Donald Trump’s return to power has disrupted development assistance, multilateralism, and foreign policy. The new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has commenced a reassessment of all foreign aid initiatives for USAID to ensure that they are in line with US foreign policy following the release of the executive order by the President. The ‘stop work’ orders will apply to all foreign development assistance, except for those exempted, such as emergency food aid. While the announcement was not surprising, the speed, magnitude, and scale were unexpected. The order has also suspended USAID projects around the world.
The new government is opting for an interest-based and realist approach that is likely to undermine its moral or even legal responsibilities.
Although the alignment of humanitarian assistance with national security and foreign policy interests is not a new phenomenon and occurred during the Biden administration, particularly in its diplomatic and military support to Israel, the former had generally adopted a principled approach to aid by stressing on multilateral cooperation and human rights protection. The normative framework of impartiality, neutrality, and humanity will not be a priority for the new regime’s approach to international aid. The new government is opting for an interest-based and realist approach that is likely to undermine its moral or even legal responsibilities. It is likely to de-legitimise Washington as a promoter and funder of humanitarian aid that it has cultivated for decades. The US’s political and economic clout has had a major bearing on its involvement in global humanitarian action. Although it has historically been a key donor towards the humanitarian sector, foreign assistance comprised less than one percent of the entire federal budget of the US.
Bigger shift towards an interest-based approach
Will the nexus between politics and humanitarian aid be increasingly dominated by foreign policy objectives under the Trump era? How can fundamental values of universality, neutrality and impartiality be upheld amid increasing politicisation and securitisation of aid?
Although humanitarians have pledged to use a normative approach to aid as enshrined in the General Assembly Resolution 46/182, the nature and amount of assistance given to beneficiaries has varied based on their interests. Humanitarian assistance has hardly been neutral, altruistic and apolitical since it is increasingly tied to the national politics of donor states and influences their engagement with host countries. It may also be influenced by its role and standing in the international or regional order.
Humanitarian assistance has hardly been neutral, altruistic and apolitical since it is increasingly tied to the national politics of donor states and influences their engagement with host countries.
There was limited international intervention in the domestic matters of states, including humanitarian aid to respect state sovereignty during the Cold War era. It was also connected to the decolonisation process to uphold the right to autonomy, free from foreign influence and reduce the propensity of confrontation between states. However, the framework guiding international relations changed in the post-Cold War period, and a more interventionist one emerged. This had a trickle-down effect on aid, which also deviated from its fundamental norms by making way for a new humanitarian model centered on the claim that it is neither desirable nor feasible to decouple foreign aid from politics. This approach grew more significant after the September 9/11 attacks, when humanitarian action became overtly integrated into national security models. Washington, in particular, has a legacy of giving big amounts of aid to receive support from local actors, get hold of military intelligence and maintain its soft power.
Aid is regularly used as a political tool to influence the foreign, domestic and geopolitical policies of recipient countries. Some benefactors have also encroached on state sovereignty under the pretext of development assistance. It has enabled donor states to validate their superior position and maintain the entrenched framework in the global order with funders touting their support for flaunting their support for the less privileged countries. This has resulted in beneficiaries not receiving control and autonomy over the political systems of their states.
Impact of aid suspension on foreign programmes
The latest pause on aid by the Trump administration has heightened concerns on the future of international and development aid for countries that are facing protracted humanitarian crises or fragile state transitions. It will bring new challenges to humanitarian organisations that have relied on the US not only for financial but also political, diplomatic and social support to achieve their mandates. Partners and contractors who were employed by USAID have either had their contracts terminated or have been placed on leave.
The Diversity and Inclusion Scholarship Program (DISP) was created to support Burmese students in pursuing higher education at Asian universities following disruptions to educational institutes in Myanmar after the coup.
Aid organisations have already reported concerns on shortages of food and medical supplies and the closure of some healthcare clinics operating along the Thai-Myanmar border that hosts approximately 100,000 protracted refugees from Myanmar. Although the situation on the ground was already challenging due to poor economic development, ongoing conflict and insufficient international support even before the issuing of the stop-work order, humanitarian actors managed to operate somewhat permanent facilities to provide basic services. Across the border, NGOs in many parts of Myanmar, especially contested or newly liberated regions, developed into key actors rendering much-needed aid such as emergency food, medical care and shelter. Their activities are also likely to be disrupted and adversely affect communities on the ground. The suspension has also disrupted resettlement programmes for refugees and scholarships for students. The Diversity and Inclusion Scholarship Program (DISP) was created to support Burmese students in pursuing higher education at Asian universities following disruptions to educational institutes in Myanmar after the coup.
Although aid for Rohingyas languishing in refugee camps and settlements has been exempted, many media outlets have overlooked how the waiver will not extend to other connected groups such as the law enforcement that is providing security to the host community. The pause could also impact Bangladesh’s political transition during this critical juncture. An interim government was established following Sheikh Hasina’s ouster in the wake of the 2024 student-led uprising. While the scope of a caretaker government has usually been limited to preparing elections, the current regime has undertaken a unique role of focusing on long-term democratic and political change. The stop-work order could prevent Washington from providing monitoring support for upcoming national elections. The fact that flawed polls marked by vote rigging, political violence, and electoral manipulation have been held on consecutive occasions, convening robust and credible elections would not only be necessary to restore public confidence in the country’s electoral process but also in its rule of law and democracy.
The new government also lacks a profound understanding of ‘life-saving humanitarian assistance’, given that many halted programmes sought to save high-risk and underprivileged communities.
The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan as an aid-dependent country was precarious for decades, but it worsened following the suspension of development funding after the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021. The international community continues to remain in a dilemma on whether to engage, isolate or oppose the political establishment. Many humanitarian agencies are preparing for further cuts to their programmes. Nonprofit groups providing healthcare and other forms of aid have already stopped or suspended their activities. The suspension of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) programme catered for former Afghans partners brings unpredictability on whether they can still relocate to the US, including for those stuck in third countries. It is still uncertain at this stage how much of the funding will be permanently suspended or which programmes will resume. The foreign aid issue is the beginning of the new government’s strategy to assess how humanitarian assistance would reap benefits for the country. Refugees dwelling in a remote area have little to offer; it is unlikely that the new regime will be willing to extend a helping hand to these vulnerable groups. The new government also lacks a profound understanding of ‘life-saving humanitarian assistance’, given that many halted programmes sought to save high-risk and underprivileged communities. Many humanitarian groups have reported panic and a lack of clarity on how to apply for the waiver to the arbitrary orders. They have not been provided with clear information on the status of their applications, as government officials have been instructed not to communicate with them at the time of writing this commentary.
Conclusion
The scale of crises and disasters affecting an increasing number of groups and individuals has stretched the humanitarian sector. Organisations are further overwhelmed by the emergence of new crises along with limited and inconsistent funding. Agencies and bodies that rely on voluntary funding by donor countries will be greatly affected by the latest order issued by the Trump government. It remains to be seen how humanitarian actors will seek alternative sources of assistance and whether other donor countries will step into the void to support aid groups to continue their mandates. However, this could lead to shifts in the long term, not only on the international development front but also for multilateralism.
Agencies and bodies that rely on voluntary funding by donor countries will be greatly affected by the latest order issued by the Trump government.
In the meantime, humanitarian actors are likely to resort to greater selectiveness in the allocation of aid. The practice of selectivity, however, is not only practically puzzling but also reveals divergent theoretical expectations about donor response to various crises. Such discernment can prevent the global order from evolving into a normative one. This article has shown that the convergence of politics and aid is counterproductive and undermines humanitarian norms. Although foreign aid is technically economic, it does not have to be removed from activities involving collaboration, mutual understanding and sensitivity with local organisations and communities. Human development needs to be better integrated in these aid models to ensure that the interests, agency and voices of beneficiaries are met.
Roshni Kapur is a Doctoral Student at the University of Ghent.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
