The recent decision by the Trump administration to slash major humanitarian aid programs has triggered alarm across the international community, with severe implications for countries already grappling with conflict, poverty, and health crises. Sources confirm that significant funding for emergency food aid, healthcare, and development assistance in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria has been halted or drastically reduced.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department have initiated widespread program suspensions, following the implementation of Executive Order 14169 signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025. The order mandates a 90-day freeze on all U.S. foreign development aid to allow for a sweeping reassessment of America’s global aid strategy. Although some emergency food assistance and military-related aid were exempt, the impact on humanitarian efforts has been substantial.
In Afghanistan, the World Health Organization (WHO) has warned that up to 80 percent of health services could shut down by June due to the lack of funding. The consequences are expected to be dire, with essential healthcare for millions potentially disappearing in one of the world's most vulnerable countries. The WHO stated that these cuts would not only weaken already fragile systems but would also cost lives.
Yemen and Somalia are also facing renewed uncertainty. With conflict already disrupting local infrastructure, the sudden withdrawal of American support could plunge communities into deeper hunger and insecurity. The World Food Programme (WFP) has said the cuts could be a "death sentence" for millions depending on daily food supplies and basic services.
The situation has been compounded by internal reshuffles within the State Department. The appointment of Lew Olowski, a junior national security lawyer, to lead the Global Talent Management Bureau has raised eyebrows. Critics argue that such key appointments are part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reshape the diplomatic corps in line with its America First policies, often at the expense of global engagement and long-standing alliances.
Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has publicly defended the administration’s shift in policy. He stated that the United States can no longer bear the bulk of global humanitarian costs and called on other wealthy nations to step up their contributions. His remarks followed the administration’s decision to allocate only $2 million in aid to Myanmar following a devastating earthquake — a stark contrast to previous U.S. responses to such disasters.
Humanitarian agencies and international observers have warned that the ripple effects of these decisions could lead to a surge in global instability. With vital aid being cut off abruptly, millions may face famine, disease, and displacement. Aid leaders argue that the U.S., once a cornerstone of global humanitarian response, is withdrawing from a role that cannot easily be replaced by others in the short term.
As the 90-day review period continues, advocacy groups and international partners are urging the Trump administration to reconsider its position. They emphasize that the cost of inaction — in human lives and global stability — may far outweigh any perceived financial savings or political gains.