‘Damaging’ US foreign affairs budget cuts funding, fuels partisan politics

The latest U.S. House of Representatives foreign affairs funding bill is either “disastrous,” “deeply political,” and would undermine development, or a fiscally prudent piece of legislation that cuts “wasteful spending” — depending on who you ask. What’s clear is that partisan debates will once again be a part of the budget process, which could mean a risk of a government shutdown and a lot of back-and-forth to reach a compromise in a year further complicated by a presidential election. The Republican-led House of Representatives proposed a foreign affairs budget for 2025 that would cut funding by 11% compared to this year’s levels, and is 19% less than President Joe Biden requested. And the cuts are not equally distributed across priorities: climate change, multilateral organizations — particularly United Nations agencies — and humanitarian aid appear to bear the brunt. The $51.713 billion on the table, is below the already slimmed down 2024 budget, which cut foreign affairs funding by 6% from 2023. The lower spending is sure to concern development advocates, especially against a backdrop of growing crises and needs globally. InterAction, an alliance of NGOs focused on global poverty, in a statement called the overall funding number “stunningly low and damaging to not only people in need worldwide but America’s strategic global interests.” The organization asked the House to reconsider the allocation and called on the Senate to respond with a budget that would address global challenges and the demand for foreign assistance. Still, though unlikely to pass in its current form, the bill introduced this week and approved by the subcommittee on Tuesday indicates Republican priorities for foreign affairs. The proposed funding bill cuts “wasteful spending” and “continues reestablishing American leadership” where the Biden administration has been lacking and focuses on key U.S. priorities, including supporting Israel and Taiwan and countering China, Iran, and Cuba, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, the Republican chair of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee in a statement. “This proposed legislation continues advancing global freedom, manifests strong solidarity with our allies, and stands firm against the malign forces undermining U.S. national security,” he said. The top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Barbara Lee, saw things differently, calling the legislation “deeply political” and “without consideration of the real life consequences of our national security and the well being of our allies.” “The message of this bill is more weapons and less cooperation,” she said, pointing to an increase in military financing and a prohibition on funding for many United Nations agencies. The bill “repeats many of the bad ideas of last year’s and then doubles down with some new ones” she said at a markup hearing on the budget. Lee added she hopes the deficiencies in the proposal can be addressed as the budget process continues. “It would be disastrous to go forward as it is currently written,” she said. Both Lee and the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, said Democrats will not support this version of the bill, which will need bipartisan support in the House and Senate to get approved. “This bill unravels the hard fought credibility and influence we have earned to be a global leader. This bill threatens our national security. It threatens women's health globally. It hampers our response to the climate crisis. It undermines our development core by underfunding the State Department and USAID,” DeLauro said, adding “I am awestruck that the majority is once again dragging us through the same ridiculous song and dance on these appropriations bills that lead to chaos, division and shut down threats.” Total elimination The House bill eliminates funding for the U.N.’s regular budget, and prohibits money to the World Health Organization, the U.N. Population Fund, and the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA. This “extreme proposal” eliminating funding to U.N. agencies is bad for the U.S., may cause more spending over time, and will open the door for China to further exert its influence, Jordie Hannum, executive director of the Better World Campaign wrote in an opinion piece on Tuesday. China and Russia “want nothing more than for the U.S. to exit the global stage,” he wrote, adding that withdrawing from U.N. agencies “would be a strategic defeat for the U.S. and the very priorities many defunding advocates hold dear.” It also cuts all funding to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, UNESCO, UN Women, the U.N. Montreal Protocol, U.N. Environment Fund, and World Economic Forum. It eliminates any contributions to the Inter-American Development Bank and several other accounts, including the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund. Also not allowed would be any funding that could support China, or money that countries would use to repay Chinese debt. The legislation proposes prohibiting international financial institutions from using U.S. dollars to make loans to China. Policy priorities The bill includes support for foreign military financing and efforts to counter China and bolster U.S. interests in the Indo-Pacific region. It also provides money for democracy programs in Cuba and includes protections for faith-based organizations. But it clearly takes aim at a number of Biden administration priorities, chief among them are its climate policies. It “restricts” Biden’s “ability to redirect funds to wasteful climate programs that harm energy security and economic development in our country and around the world,” Rep. Tom Cole, chair of the House Appropriations Committee said at the hearing on Tuesday. The bill also forbids funds to be used to implement the Paris climate agreement or several climate-related executive orders, including guidance on fossil fuel energy at multilateral development banks. In fact, it would bar the U.S. Treasury Department from pursuing its climate policies at the World Bank or restricting the types of energy investments multilateral development banks can make. It would also ban funding for the Green Climate Fund, the Clean Technology Fund, and the loss and damage fund. The legislation would apply the expanded Mexico City policy which withholds all U.S. global health assistance from international organizations that provide, or even offer, information on abortions to all health funds. Among other policy provisions is a rule against funding drag queen workshops and organizations or programs that offer counseling about or conduct sex change services, or that “promotes transgenderism.” By the numbers USAID operating expenses: $1.21 billion (down by $485 million from 2024) Contributions to international organizations and contributions to peacekeeping: $1.34 billion (down by $1.57 billion from 2024) Global health: $9.26 billion (down by $762 million from 2024) Development assistance: $3 billion (down by $931 million from 2024) Economic Support Fund: $3.4 billion (down by $159 million from 2024). Humanitarian assistance: $5.9 billion (down by $2.57 billion from 2024). Food security and agricultural development: $960 million (equal to 2024). Multilateral assistance: $1.7 billion (down by $1.02 billion from 2024). Peace Corps: $410 million (down by $20.5 million from 2024). Millennium Challenge Corporation: $937 million (up $7 million from 2024). U.S. International Development Finance Corporation: $769.02 million (down by $212.22 million from 2024).