Billions slashed in House's 'meat cleaver approach' to foreign affairs

From a podium on Capitol Hill, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene — a far-right Republican from Georgia — ticked off the “wasteful things” she felt American taxpayers had spent their money on. There was a USAID program in Tanzania, which led to 10,000 patients being tested for HIV; a program under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, that linked some 2.5 million adolescent girls to HIV testing, educational support, and contraception; and the fact that in a single year, USAID provided assistance to over 130 nations, including Ukraine, Yemen, and South Sudan. As Greene spoke, the anger in her voice rose, too — as did her desire to strip the U.S. International Agency for International Development of all its money in 2025. "Imagine if this money went to Americans who, by the way, are paying for it, instead of foreign countries,” said Greene, speaking on the House floor. “Maybe we could solve some of the problems we have here at home.” Greene’s amendment, which she presented for inclusion in next year’s foreign affairs funding bill, was rejected by 80% of those within the U.S. House of Representatives. But despite dismissing funding for USAID outright, the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives still passed a bill that would slash billions — not just from USAID, but from the State Department, United Nations, and other federal entities, too. “We are cutting wasteful spending while fulfilling our national security commitments,” said Mario Diaz-Balart, the Republican chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee, in a statement released by the House’s Committee on Appropriations. “This bill will advance global freedom, manifest strong solidarity with our allies, and stand firm against the malign forces undermining U.S. national security.” The bill is unlikely to make it through the Democratic-led Senate, and even unlikelier to be signed into law by U.S. President Joe Biden. But the breadth and depth of the cuts is more than just political gameplay, experts told Devex. Instead, it spells out a Republican road map — one that seeks to dissolve funding toward foreign aid and dismantle many of the institutions conservatives feel work against their interests. “This meat cleaver approach of cutting off funding to the U.N.’s regular budget … will undermine our position globally and hand over influence to other countries.” --— Peter Yeo, president, Better World Campaign "I think it’s very unlikely that much of anything from this bill would get passed wholesale,” said Katy Crosby, Mercy Corps’ senior director of U.S. policy and advocacy. “But the significance is one, messaging, and two, staking out a bargaining position. If this is how low the House is starting, depending on what the Senate comes out with, you usually meet somewhere in the middle." The baseline proposed by the House would allocate $51.7 billion for the U.S.’s international affairs budget for the next fiscal year. That’s a $7.6 billion drop — and an 11% decrease — from 2024, along with a figure 20% below the Biden administration’s $64.4 billion request, according to a statement from the House Committee on Appropriations. International security assistance, like money for international narcotics control and law enforcement, could go up. On the other hand, nearly all else would fall, with humanitarian assistance alone slated for a 32% reduction from the 2024 fiscal year, according to an analysis published by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. The UN in the bull’s eye If the House bill passes, Congress would slash funding for the U.N.’s regular budget for a “savings of $761.6 million,” according to a statement. The regular budget pays for the U.N.’s administrative costs — such as the salaries of the U.N. secretary-general and others across the secretariat — and operating expenses at headquarters in New York and Geneva. The legislation also proposes the elimination of “more than 18 unnecessary programs” including the World Health Organization, UN Women, and the U.N. Environment Fund, among others. “This meat cleaver approach of cutting off funding to the U.N.’s regular budget and almost all of the U.N.’s programs will undermine our position globally and hand over influence to other countries,” said Peter Yeo, president of the Better World Campaign, which works to strengthen the partnership between the U.N. and the U.S. government. “This is not the right time for that.” It’s the second straight year the House has tried to cut U.N. funding. Last year, that attempt failed — and today, the United States is paying for 22% of the U.N.’s regular budget, according to figures from the Better World Campaign. “We pay [for the UN’s regular budget] not out of the goodness of our heart. We pay because we are a member of the U.N.,” said Yeo. “We are required to pay our dues, and if we don’t, we lose our vote in the U.N. General Assembly. I can't think of anything that would make China, or Russia, or any of our other competitors happier.” Still, the appetite seems to be there. Five amendments brought by Republican lawmakers specifically targeted the U.N., one of which would bar all U.S. funding to the institution overall. The amendments failed — but they don’t come as a complete surprise. The U.N. has long been a favorite target for U.S. isolationists in the Republican Party, who have bridled at its very foreignness, and the frequency with which governments at the U.N. differ with the U.S. over a range of policy matters, from the U.S. embargo of Cuba to Washington’s unyielding defense of Israel. But the U.N. has relied on broad bipartisan support from Democrats and Republican internationalists. During the Trump administration, Congress routinely batted back White House budget proposals calling for sweeping cuts in U.N. funding. In fact, the World Food Programme, which was then led by a former Republican politician, David Beasley, saw its budget increase. Still, over the last several years, the U.N. has increasingly become scrambled in the U.S. culture wars. The United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, has repeatedly been tied into debates on family planning and abortion; the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, the central U.N. agency responding to the war in Gaza, was stripped of U.S. funding after the Israeli government accused a dozen of its staff of participating in Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Crunching US foreign assistance The House bill also reduces funding for USAID’s operating expenses to $1.21 billion by 2025. That’s a $480 million drop from this fiscal year, and $661 million less than what the Biden administration requested in March. “The numbers are not keeping pace with the overall scope of what USAID is doing, and frankly, what it's being asked to do,” Mercy Corps’ Crosby told Devex. “Not having a USAID workforce that is complementary, or comparative to what is being asked of the agency, presents real risks of reducing the quality of the programming.” Global health, economic support, development assistance, and humanitarian programming would also take a hit, collectively falling by $1.55 billion from this year to next. Multiple other funding streams would be eliminated entirely, including cash going toward the State Department’s Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund — a presidential drawdown account that the Biden administration had requested $100 million to support, according to the analysis from the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. At the same time, the bill would terminate 33 special envoy and representative positions, including those focused on climate change, racial equity, and LGBTQ+ issues; and slash funding for several climate-related institutions and programming. It’s the same set of cuts put forward by Republican lawmakers in other forums, such as the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy recommendations for the next conservative president. “The house is setting its marker,” said Bob Powers, director of government relations at advocacy organization Bread for the World. “This is a message from the House Republican majority when it comes to funding writ large.” Despite the slew of funding cuts included in the original legislation, Congress members put up 50 additional amendments when the House met to discuss the details. Forty-two of those amendments were adopted, and though another 19 amendments were rejected on a bipartisan basis, the all-encompassing nature of those proposals was noteworthy. One of those failed amendments was Greene’s, which would have effectively defunded USAID. Another would have struck all funding toward the country’s International Disaster Assistance account, which helps USAID respond to natural disasters, conflict, and crises. And yet another — again, introduced by Greene — would have reduced the salary of USAID Administrator Samantha Power to $1. That amendment, which would have needed a majority vote to pass, failed by a vote of 133 to 277. Still, Liz Leibowitz, the senior director of U.S. government relations at ONE, said she was heartened by the bipartisan rejections of many of these amendments — including Greene’s. Instead, Leibowitz explained, the amendments provide something of a blueprint for organizations like ONE, outlining where they need to concentrate their advocacy and education efforts most. “I’m definitely concerned when you see a number like 133 members supporting something like that,” said Leibowitz. “But I do hold onto the hope that the majority is overcoming these amendments … and I think that’s a clear indication that some of these are just beyond the pale in terms of what members would consider.”