The freeze, however, does not apply to military assistance Israel and Egypt—two long-standing recipients of US military support
In a move that has drawn widespread concern from humanitarian groups and foreign policy experts, the U.S. State Department has enacted a sweeping freeze on new funding for almost all foreign assistance programs. The freeze, which was ordered by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, came after an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Monday and is set to last for at least three months. While the freeze includes billions of dollars in U.S.-funded projects globally, there are notable exceptions—emergency food programs and military aid to Israel and Egypt.
The new directive threatens a dramatic halt to a wide range of U.S.-backed initiatives around the world that focus on health, education, development, job training, anti-corruption, and security assistance, among others. These programs, which have long been the cornerstone of U.S. foreign aid efforts, benefit millions of people across dozens of countries. However, this freeze will have significant consequences for a wide array of projects, many of which provide essential services and support to vulnerable populations.
The U.S. remains the world’s largest donor of foreign assistance, contributing approximately $60 billion in 2023, a sum that represents about 1% of the federal budget. However, this freeze casts a shadow over the future of U.S. foreign assistance and its global impact, which has often been credited with fostering goodwill and strengthening international partnerships.
Despite the far-reaching nature of the freeze, Secretary Rubio’s order has specifically carved out exceptions for certain types of aid. Emergency food programs, such as those aimed at addressing the growing famine crisis in Sudan, are among those that will continue to receive funding. These programs, which help feed millions of people affected by conflict and natural disasters, are seen as critical to preventing further humanitarian suffering.
However, the exclusion of life-saving health programs from the freeze has drawn sharp criticism from global aid organizations. Notably, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)—a globally lauded initiative credited with saving 25 million lives, including 5.5 million children—was included in the suspension. The program, launched under Republican President George W. Bush in 2003, has been widely praised for its success in combating HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions. The inclusion of PEPFAR in the freeze has raised alarm among humanitarian officials, who argue that cutting funding for health programs could result in devastating consequences for millions of people reliant on these services.
“This decision could have life or death consequences,” warned Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America, in a statement. “By suspending foreign development assistance, the Trump administration is threatening the lives and futures of communities in crisis, abandoning the U.S.’s long-held bipartisan approach to foreign assistance.”
In response to the news, some aid organizations have expressed fears that the freeze could force them to suspend their operations globally. A former senior official from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) indicated that many aid organizations, unsure of how to navigate the funding freeze, may have no choice but to cease their work temporarily. This could include halting crucial projects that support health and education in conflict zones and developing nations.
The freeze, however, does not apply to military assistance to certain U.S. allies. Specifically, military aid to Israel and Egypt—two long-standing recipients of U.S. military support—will continue. This decision has drawn attention, as it appears to further underscore the administration’s priorities when it comes to foreign assistance, with military support for allies taking precedence over broader development and humanitarian aid.
There has been no indication yet regarding whether U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, which has been a subject of considerable political debate, will be included in the exceptions. The Biden administration had approved military aid to Ukraine before leaving office, but there remains about $3.85 billion in congressionally authorized funding for future shipments of arms. It now rests with President Trump to decide whether to release those funds.
The freeze is seen as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration and many Republican lawmakers to scrutinize U.S. foreign aid and cut back on what they perceive as wasteful spending. Rep. Brian Mast, a Florida Republican and the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced this week that Republicans would push for greater accountability within the State Department’s budget, ensuring that every dollar spent on foreign assistance meets strict standards of necessity.
“We must ensure that appropriations are not duplicated, are effective, and are aligned with President Trump’s foreign policy agenda,” Rubio’s cable noted. A review of all foreign assistance programs is expected to be completed within the next month, with a report to follow outlining the future direction of U.S. foreign aid. The review will aim to ensure that the programs that continue to receive funding are in line with the Trump administration’s foreign policy priorities.
Meanwhile, the suspension of funding has also raised concerns about its potential impact on refugee resettlement programs. The U.S. State Department has sent guidance to resettlement agencies, directing them to immediately suspend their work under the foreign assistance they currently receive. The suspension could affect resettlement efforts for vulnerable refugees, including Afghan evacuees who arrived on special immigrant visas.
The freeze on U.S. foreign aid is a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, one that has raised alarms about its implications for global stability and the well-being of the world’s most vulnerable populations. While some critics see the freeze as a necessary step to rein in government spending and ensure that U.S. foreign policy is more aligned with national interests, others warn that the suspension of life-saving programs could have far-reaching humanitarian consequences. As the review process unfolds, the world waits to see how U.S. foreign assistance will be reshaped under the new administration.
