Within the first few weeks of his presidency, Trump has announced an arguably shocking policy development; the freezing of USAID (US Agency for International Development). This entails almost all staff and personnel of the agency being put on paid administrative leave. The news comes after the signing of an executive order on January 20th, specifying that all US aid to “foreign countries, NGOs, international organisations and contractors”, will be paused for 90 days (Better World Campaign) . The president’s rationale is grounded in his “America First” strategy, with all related funding undergoing a “review” to ensure alignment with American priorities (Hughes). This decision holds global significance, as USAID funds humanitarian aid and development programs in an estimated 120 countries (Kruesi). 

The pause of such large amounts of aid will have detrimental consequences on essentially all aspects of human security. From the health perspective, the freeze will have a tremendous impact on conflict-stricken nations, notably ones in Africa, that are battling the spread of AIDS/HIV. This is because current conflicts, such as the ongoing crisis in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, are already restricting people’s access to vital treatment (Doctors Without Borders), with the freeze only exacerbating this issue. Unfortunately, widespread programs such as PEPFAR that normally would have the scope to operate in even less stable regions are now under threat. HIV patients requiring vital treatment have already been turned away from USAID-funded clinics (Kruesi), and aid workers say “40 newborns” per day have contracted HIV since the freeze (Khurana and Pasick). The significance of the pause can be seen when observing the achievements of USAID-funded programs, with for example PEPFAR  being “credited with saving more than 25 million lives”. (Kruesi). Therefore,  USAID plays a critical role in preventing the non-material security threat of disease, especially in regions already facing instability due to conflict.

Humanitarian organizations working in conflict-ridden regions have also voiced serious concerns, with rising levels of insecurity. A dire example is the current situation in Gaza, with the two major field hospitals relying on US funding. In addition to emergency medical relief, there have been warnings about the stopping of food deliveries and other necessary humanitarian supplies, potentially threatening the pathway towards sustainable development and a positive peace under the ceasefire (Silva). Disruption of services has also been seen in Sudan, with food security in particular being under threat. Two-thirds of the capital’s soup kitchens have already had to close only a week after the freeze, impairing “cut-off civilian populations” (Malik). Deaths related directly to Washington’s decision have also been recorded in Thailand, where refugees from Myanmar’s civil war have been discharged from hospitals providing life-saving treatment (Newey). The examples above highlight that the negative implications reach a global scale, with people’s right to access necessary resources for survival being stripped from them. 

To conclude, the freeze of USAID has already disrupted human security in various ways, with even more severe consequences expected to unfold. If left unaddressed, this suspension could exacerbate existing conflicts, deepen humanitarian crises, and leave vulnerable populations without support.