As humanitarian and development organizations brace for a potential second Trump administration, questions loom about the future of global aid funding. On his first day in office, President Trump has already suspended aid for 90 days to evaluate whether the aid the US is giving aligns with his priority.
“foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values” and “serve to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations internal to and among countries.”
Consequently, Trump declared that “no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”
According to the Associated Press, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation hearing last week that “every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions:
“Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” he said.
The United States plays a pivotal role as one of the largest donors to major humanitarian organizations, including the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM).
In some cases, U.S. contributions surpass those of all other nations combined. For instance, American taxpayers funded 51% of IOM’s budget and 57% of UNHCR’s operations in recent years, underscoring the U.S.'s critical role in global humanitarian efforts.
Trump’s First Term: A Preview of What’s to Come
The Trump administration has historically favored a selective approach to funding, reallocating resources to align with its priorities. If a second term resembles the first, there could be significant changes in how U.S. aid is distributed:
1. Increased Support for Faith-Based and Local NGOs:
Trump’s administration preferred funding faith-based organizations and local NGOs, reflecting its "America First" philosophy. This approach prioritizes aid that aligns with U.S. interests while questioning the use of public funds for programs perceived as benefiting other nations over Americans.
2. Focus on Non-Political Humanitarian Aid:
Humanitarian aid not tied to political agendas is likely to continue receiving support. This could mean funding for emergency relief, food security, and disaster response efforts.
Sectors Likely to Suffer Under Trump 2.0
1. Abortion and Reproductive Rights:
Reproductive health funding, particularly for abortion-related programs, could face severe cuts. The Republican administration has long opposed abortion rights, and Trump’s first term saw significant reductions in funding for these initiatives.
2. Climate Change Programs:
Trump’s skepticism of climate change—famously calling it a “hoax”—is expected to inform policy decisions once again. His first term saw the U.S. withdraw from the Paris Accord, an international agreement aimed at reducing carbon emissions. A second term could bring further rollbacks on spending for climate change initiatives and environmental protection.
The Fight Against Disinformation: A New Landscape
Another area poised for change is the U.S. approach to combating misinformation. Social media platforms, including Meta and X (formerly Twitter), have announced plans to scale back fact-checking efforts. This move aligns with sentiments expressed by key Trump allies, including Elon Musk, who has criticized fact-checking as overreach.
Additionally, the Global Engagement Center (GEC), a unit within the State Department established in 2016 to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation, could see its efforts reduced under a second Trump administration.
The Global Implications
A Trump 2.0 presidency would bring both challenges and opportunities for NGOs. While some sectors—such as reproductive health and climate change—might experience funding cuts, others, like faith-based and grassroots organizations, could see increased support.
Humanitarian organizations must prepare for potential shifts in U.S. foreign aid priorities and explore ways to diversify funding sources. Trump’s "America First" approach is set to reshape the global aid landscape, impacting how NGOs operate and strategize. Humanitarian aid not tied to political agendas is likely to continue receiving support. This could mean funding for emergency relief, food security, and disaster response efforts.