Presented by Munich Security Conference
The U.S. State Department has spelled out President Donald Trump’s foreign assistance vision, affirming his signature style of transactionalism, determination to protect American sovereignty, and newfound declaration of power over the Western Hemisphere. That leaves one part of the world conspicuously absent.
Also in today’s edition: It’s official. Food for Peace gets a new home coupled with a big new deal.
+ Happening today at 10 a.m. ET: Join me and my colleagues Adva Saldinger, Elissa Miolene, and Michael Igoe — who were at the forefront a year ago breaking the fast-moving stories of the upending of the U.S. foreign aid architecture by the Trump administration — for a Pro Briefing. We’ll take you through the twists and turns of how we arrived here and the way forward. Register here to attend live and/or have a recording sent to you.
While it doesn’t contain specific dollar amounts, the foreign assistance portion of the U.S. State Department’s latest five-year strategy does contain a multitude of insights into the administration’s worldview.
And not to keep trotting out overly used Trumpian mantras, but that thinking is a striking combo of “America First” and the president’s newer “Donroe Doctrine,” a play on the Monroe Doctrine, coined after Trump’s push to assert U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere.
So it’s little surprise that the Western Hemisphere emerges as a key winner, alongside East Asia, which together would receive a whopping 40% of all U.S. foreign assistance budget — a 25%–30% increase from USAID’s spending on the regions in 2024.
Compare that to the year before Trump returned to power, when 47% of foreign aid from USAID and the State Department was obligated to Africa and the Middle East.
“It’s about what the strategy didn’t say about Africa rather than what it did say,” Elizabeth Hoffman of the ONE Campaign tells my colleague Elissa Miolene.
The shift to Latin America has confounded some experts given that the region is made up of many upper-middle-income countries.
“With our grant-based assistance, what are you going to achieve with it in a country like Chile or Panama, or some of these other countries that are much more capable of funding their own development at this point?” asks Conor Savoy of the Center for Global Development. “They’re basically saying that they’re not thinking of foreign assistance as grant-based.”
That tracks with the administration’s resolve to move away from traditional assistance to “real development and prosperity” driven by trade, private sector growth, and efficient markets, according to the strategy, which rewards U.S. allies and those deemed to be strategic interests. For example, partner countries will be chosen based on military and security ties, cooperating on migration policies, and voting with the U.S. in international organizations.
“That’s a little disconcerting,” Hoffman says. “The strategic interest around humanitarian assistance is the goodwill it creates — and the fact that when we do these things in places of the world that may be hostile to the United States, it helps the population perceive us in a different way.”
Read: Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’ redraws US foreign aid map
The transfer of Food for Peace — America’s flagship global hunger program — from the State Department to the U.S. Department of Agriculture had been talked about for months but not officially announced.
Now we know for sure that USDA is taking over the program, Elissa writes, and in addition, it has entered into a $452 million agreement with the World Food Programme, according to emails obtained by Devex.
“The [World Food Programme] funding will help U.S. producers move American-grown food to people in need around the world, sending nearly 211,000 tons of U.S. agricultural goods to people in need in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, Kenya, and Rwanda,” states a press release attached to the email.
Food for Peace will follow an “America First” approach, according to the release — one that requires WFP and all of USDA’s other foreign assistance partners to institute “strict accountability measures to prevent waste, fraud and abuse,” reduce long-term dependency on foreign aid, and procure commodities of “100% U.S. origin.”
“I am thrilled USDA can make that happen through America First international food assistance programs,” says Luke Lindberg, the undersecretary of agriculture for trade and foreign agricultural affairs, in a related statement. “Under USDA, the Food for Peace program will benefit American farmers and producers and help people in need around the world in a way that respects hardworking American taxpayers.”
According to the press release, the initial Food for Peace award to WFP will lead to bulk purchase of U.S.-grown agricultural commodities by March. Additional awards will be posted publicly “as funds become available.”
Read: USDA takes over Food for Peace with $452M World Food Programme deal
Background: After USAID, Food for Peace enters an uncertain new chapter (Pro)
The State Department may have one future in mind for U.S. foreign assistance — which doesn’t prominently feature Africa in the mix — but Congress is clearly formulating its own vision, as seen in the $50 billion funding bill it came to a hard-fought compromise on.
The House of Representatives passed the bill but the Senate still needed to approve it, though it seemed to be on course for passage — until the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by a border patrol agent in Minneapolis shook the country.
Senate Democrats now say they won’t approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, without reforms to the agency. That matters because the House had bundled the foreign aid legislation with other funding bills, including for DHS.
The result is that the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations bill will not go through as expected, sources tell Senior Reporter Adva Saldinger. Lawmakers are considering a number of options, including: stripping out the homeland security bill and passing the rest of the bills through the Senate, adding restrictions and reforms to DHS into the funding package, or potentially passing a short-term extension until lawmakers resolve the issue.
Any of these options will require the House to vote again to approve the bill or bills. But with the House out until Monday, that sets up at least a short-term partial government shutdown tomorrow that would stretch out until lawmakers come to some sort of agreement.
Further reading: $50B US funding bill a welcome surprise, but will it see light of day? (Pro)
Despite the roadblock, the proposed U.S. foreign assistance bill is far from dead. So we delved into the legislation to see exactly what’s in it.
First of all, as my colleague Miguel Antonio Tamonan writes, not all of it will be spent on development and humanitarian projects. A sizable sum is earmarked for administration and operation costs, as well as U.S. diplomatic affairs carried out by the State Department.
By our estimation, direct aid spending will likely be between $30 billion and $31 billion. This includes the $23.4 billion allocation for bilateral aid programs, around $4.5 billion in multilateral aid, and $2.6 billion for international security assistance.
We provide a line-by-line breakdown of the figures to see exactly where the money will go.
Read: The $50B US aid budget — what’s in it for development? (Pro)
+ Get immediate and unlimited access to exclusive funding insights and analyses to navigate the aid sector’s “new normal” when you sign up for Devex Pro with a 15-day free trial. You’ll unlock hidden funding opportunities, gain inside information and connect with key industry players at exclusive Pro briefings and career events, and access a wealth of knowledge you won’t find anywhere else.
How did we get to America’s foreign aid reckoning? It all started with an internal State Department cable one year ago that began as a “90-day pause” on foreign aid and quickly devolved into the unraveling of USAID and the cancellation of over 10,000 aid projects — from lifesaving HIV clinics to essential food security programs.
Watch as reporters Michael Igoe and Elissa Miolene revisit the Devex-exclusive story covering a historic decision that has fundamentally reshaped the development sector as they trace the fallout from the quiet hallways of Washington, D.C., to the communities worldwide where services were abruptly halted and have yet to return.
Watch: The great reset — one year since the US aid freeze
+ The Trump Effect: Explore our dedicated page to catch up on all the latest news, in-depth analysis, and exclusive insights on how the Trump administration’s policies are reshaping U.S. aid and global development.
Rwanda seeks £100 million from the U.K. government for the cancellation of its asylum agreement deal. [BBC]
A group of 11 countries have criticized Israel over its demolition of the East Jerusalem headquarters of UNRWA, the United Nations agency for Palestinian refugees, and have called for a stop on all demolitions. [Al Jazeera]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.