Trump administration plans to cut State Department funding by half

The Trump administration’s latest plan for the U.S. State Department would cut the agency’s funding by nearly half, according to an internal memo — and would reduce foreign assistance funding alone by $21.5 billion, or 56%. The State Department has subsumed the little that’s left of the U.S. Agency for International Development, which was once a $40 billion agency. But with this new proposal, U.S. foreign assistance would face sharper cuts still. Humanitarian assistance, global health funding, and United Nations agencies are some of the hardest-hit, with the proposal slashing funds by 55%, 54%, and 89%, respectively. The memo, which was obtained by Devex on Tuesday, was first reported by The Washington Post. It was written by the reportedly ousted Peter Marocco — who led the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance until days ago — and Douglas Pitkin, the department’s budget director. In the memo, Marocco and Pitkin highlight recommendations from the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, to which the State Department was required to respond by Tuesday, April 15. As of publication time, it’s unclear how much of the proposal the State Department has agreed to. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s signature is required for the budget process to continue, the memo states, after which the plan will be finalized by OMB. Only then will the proposal be presented to Congress — a move that is expected in late April, according to the memo. “There is no final plan, final budget, final dynamic. That is up to the White House and the president of the United States as they continue to work on their budget plan and what they submit to Congress,” Tammy Bruce, the State Department’s spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday. “These are not known or finalized, or planned. Only President Trump has that information, and we’re going to see it soon, I’m sure.” Despite that, the proposed cuts total $28.4 billion for the State Department and “former USAID activities,” a drop of $26 billion — or 48% — from fiscal year 2025, which ends September 30. Last year, the U.S. government spent $60 billion on international affairs. But if passed by Congress as written, the new proposal would channel $16.9 billion to foreign assistance, a decrease from $21.5 billion this year. The proposed cuts are “reckless and dangerous,” said Tom Yazdgerdi, the president of the American Foreign Service Association, which represents 16,800 active-duty and retired members of the Department of State, USAID, and other related agencies. “Slashing nearly half of the State and USAID activities that our members carry out — alongside hiring and pay freezes and the elimination of Congressionally-mandated priorities — is not fiscal prudence,” Yazdgerdi added. “Without American investments in development, we will witness preventable suffering on a massive scale alongside increased conflict and instability.” --—Tom Hart, president and CEO, InterAction OMB also recommended a $20 billion rescission, which would claw back funds that were already appropriated by Congress for 2025. A hiring freeze on the department would continue until fiscal year 2026, the memo states, aside from “USAID integration.” There are other cuts, too. The plan would eliminate Title II Food for Peace — the United States’ flagship program to reduce hunger by exporting surplus U.S.-grown commodities worldwide — and USAID’s Transition Initiatives and Complex Crises Fund, both of which provided flexible funding beneath USAID’s former Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization. The plan would also strip funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and international peacekeeping activities, citing “recent mission failures” as the reasoning for the latter. Humanitarian assistance would decrease by $4.8 billion, leaving just $4 billion for the new “International Humanitarian Assistance” account made up of both USAID and the State Department. And global health would decrease by $5.4 billion — leaving just $4.6 billion for former-USAID programming. That includes $2.9 billion for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR; $800 million for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; $200 million for global health security; and $687 million for other interventions such as tuberculosis and malaria. “No funding is included for other global health programs, including family planning and reproductive health, nutrition, vulnerable children, the Global Health Worker Initiative, Neglected Tropical Diseases, GAVI [the Vaccine Alliance], Maternal Child Health, or the Health Reserve Fund,” the memo states. That being said, there are some funding increases in the proposed budget. OMB recommends providing $2.1 billion for a brand-new “America First Opportunities Fund,” for example — a pot of money that would provide “targeted economic and development assistance for enduring and emerging Trump Administration priorities,” which would include countering China. Also listed as a potential program within the America First Opportunities Fund, or AFOF, would be support toward the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, an agreement that allows U.S. vessels to fish in the economic zones of other countries. OMB also recommends providing $5.1 billion in foreign military financing to Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Taiwan, along with another $95 million for “military education” and $870 million for “counterterrorism, border security, demining, and non-proliferation.” The proposal assumes USAID will be integrated into the State Department, something that would require approval from Capitol Hill to become a reality. But given the rapid pace of destruction over the past several months, it’s unclear whether the Trump administration will wait for that approval or continue to push ahead. “The elimination of funding for life-saving programs — except for minimal support for HIV, TB, and malaria programs — will have devastating consequences for vulnerable women, children, and families worldwide,” said Tom Hart, the president and chief executive officer of InterAction. “Without American investments in development, we will witness preventable suffering on a massive scale alongside increased conflict and instability.”