An American Problem is a Global Problem

By Lina Anand – India and the United States of America

Recently I have found that many people fail to understand how much the United States is involved in global affairs. The most prevalent example of this is the Trump administration placing a 90-day freeze on funding of aid projects. USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, has been a particular target of the Trump administration, with the president claiming that the agency was part of a “foreign aid industry and bureaucracy… not aligned with American interests” and that its spending is “totally unexplainable” (Trump). His solution to this was a 90-day freeze on the organization's operations, followed by a plan to merge the agency with the State Department through shrinking its workforce and aligning its spending with the Trump administration’s priorities.

You may be wondering, what is the significance of the US reducing its spending on humanitarian aid? The country’s contribution to aid as a percentage of national income is far lower in comparison to other developed nations. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States development assistance contribution as a percentage of its gross national income was merely 0.2% in 2023, which seems sparse in comparison to Norway’s contribution of 1.1% (OECD). This would lead one to arrive at the intuitive conclusion that the US contribution cannot be that important. Not quite.

Lots of other countries provide aid; in fact, figures released by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development show that the United States development assistance contribution as a percentage of national income is trailing far behind other wealthy countries. In 2023, Norway was the highest, contributing 1.1% of gross national income (GNI), while the US contribution was 0.2%; therefore, the US contribution can’t be that significant (OECD). Not quite. Due to the high GNI of the US, the margin between them and the other top spending countries on aid is huge. Therefore, despite contributing so little of its GNI, the US remains the world’s biggest spender on international development. If you aren’t a fan of numbers, I have luckily done the math for you: the US GNI in 2023 was 28 trillion dollars, 0.2% of which is a staggering 5.5 trillion dollars, almost 10 times the amount of Norway’s contribution (World Bank). Of course, the actual numbers may differ by different margins for a variety of reasons, yet this mathematical example demonstrates how percentages can be misleading. Foreign aid accounted for $68 billion (~0.6%) of the annual US government spending of $6.7 trillion, $40 billion of which consists of USAID’s budget (USAID).

USAID has an astounding range of programs and locations in which it operates, not only providing life-saving care for the malnourished and disaster-stricken but also helping with education, anti-corruption work, and even funding critical trials for clinical drugs. The Youth Empower Activity in Jamaica targets the most at-risk people, helping them access education, improve job prospects, and providing them with accessible skills to ensure a future (USAID). Thousands are enrolled in this scheme across Jamaica. Last year, extending almost $50 million in relief, USAID funded the nutrition and feeding of a significant number of refugees in Colombia (USAID). Across Latin America, US foreign assistance is heavily relied on to support those displaced by guerrilla violence, the integration of migrants, and the prevention of sexual exploitation. USAID funds have also gone to a Caribbean-wide project to increase food security through increasing fruit and vegetable farming while providing scholarships for agriculture degrees and support for small farmers (USAID).

Despite many being skeptical about the scale of impact that US funding cuts have on humanitarian aid, the effects of the 90-day freeze were felt almost immediately. A report was cited by some Democratic Party politicians that prison guards securing thousands of Islamic State fighters in Syria nearly walked off the job when the funding was paused (BBC). Although waivers for the funding freeze were later issued, and the department said “life-saving” humanitarian aid was not subject to the pause, there is clearly evidence that suggests the contrary, as the staffing reductions and confusion caused by the president’s orders have resulted in the widespread disruption of services (BBC). For example, hundreds of women and girls with scheduled healthcare appointments turned up to clinics only to find there was no care (Frontline AIDS). Cuts in the agency have caused health experts to warn not only of delays in vaccine development and treatment but also disease spread. Dr. Tom Wingfield at the UK’s Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine stated in an interview with the BBC that “people will die directly because of cuts in US funding” (BBC). Over a third of the partners of the UK- and South Africa-based organization, Frontline AIDS, report being affected by the US foreign aid freeze (Frontline AIDS). Many of the Frontline AIDS partners had to suspend their HIV services to some of the most vulnerable and decrease their staff sizes (Frontline AIDS).

According to President and CEO of the Global Health Council Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, “You can’t get treatment, you can’t get care, because America has decided on a whim that you’re not worthy” (Global Health Council). Indeed, the immediacy with which Trump signed the executive order that suspended operations despite grave repercussions reflects his blatant disregard for those in need around the world. This decision also raises questions about the selfish nature of US foreign involvement under the Trump administration. Numerous nations, communities, and organizations were heavily reliant on a powerful and now rather irresponsible country. The rapid plunging of so many people globally into hunger and vulnerability further proves the inadequacy of support from other global powers. One country scaling back aid efforts should by no means jeopardize the livelihood of so many people. Whether or not this was his aim, President Trump has indirectly shifted responsibility onto other international powers and providers to work harder and amend the gap between people in need and the amount of aid that can be provided.

Bibliography

BBC. "US Foreign Aid Cuts and Their Impact on Global Health." BBC News, 2023, www.bbc.com/news/global-health.

Frontline AIDS. "Impact of US Aid Cuts on HIV Services." Frontline AIDS, 2023, www.frontlineaids.org.

Global Health Council. "Foreign Aid and Global Health: The Consequences of US Policy Changes." Global Health Council, 2023, www.globalhealth.org.

OECD. "Development Assistance Committee: Official Development Assistance." Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2023, www.oecd.org.

Trump, Donald. "Remarks on US Foreign Aid." The White House, 2023, www.whitehouse.gov.

USAID. "United States Agency for International Development Annual Report." USAID, 2023, www.usaid.gov.

World Bank. "Gross National Income of the United States, 2023." The World Bank, 2023, www.worldbank.org.