New Age of US Foreign Policy

The reduction or redirection of international assistance by the United States (U.S.) will have far-reaching consequences for African governments, particularly those heavily reliant on donor funding to sustain critical sectors such as health, education, and infrastructure. Historically, U.S. aid has played a significant role in stabilizing public services and funding programs that directly impact livelihoods.

Since the inauguration of President Trump on January 20, 2025, his administration has swiftly enacted a series of sweeping policies that target the U.S. foreign aid system, fundamentally altering the role of USAID. In a clear break from previous U.S. foreign assistance models, this overhaul prioritizes national interests over traditional humanitarian and development goals. The execution of the “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid” and “Reorganizing Foreign Assistance to Prioritize American Interests” executive orders marks the beginning of this shift. These policies focus on reducing foreign aid, centralizing USAID under the State Department, and realigning its efforts with the broader political and economic interests of the U.S. This restructuring is in direct alignment with the conservative mandate outlined in Mandate for Leadership 2025, as the Trump administration seeks to consolidate foreign aid efforts under a single framework that favors U.S. strategic goals.

The Trump administration’s policies also have a particular focus on countering China’s growing influence across the globe, particularly through the Belt and Road Initiative. In alignment with Project 2025’s vision, the administration directs USAID to redirect its resources toward programs that directly counter China’s economic and security influence in the developing world. Funding will now be funneled into strengthening alliances with U.S. strategic partners, such as Japan, Taiwan, and Israel, while simultaneously imposing restrictions to prevent USAID from supporting entities with ties to Chinese state-backed organizations. This ideological shift highlights a move toward more transactional foreign assistance, where aid is increasingly viewed as a tool for global positioning rather than a means to promote sustainable development or humanitarian goals. The policy further emphasizes a shift away from multilateral cooperation, favoring bilateral or U.S.-aligned partnerships.

Another significant component of the administration’s foreign assistance overhaul is its stance on climate change, which marks a sharp departure from the previous administration’s commitments to international climate agreements. The Trump administration plans to reallocate funding away from climate-related programs, opting instead to prioritize energy security and economic growth, particularly through fossil fuel development projects in developing nations. This pivot is in accordance with Project 2025’s directive to abandon USAID’s focus on climate change in favor of supporting traditional energy sectors. As part of the broader conservative agenda, these actions also include a rollback of the U.S. commitment to multilateral climate initiatives, signaling a retreat from international cooperative efforts on climate action. This shift underscores the administration’s broader goal of reducing U.S. involvement in global governance, focusing instead on bolstering domestic economic interests while limiting foreign aid programs to those that align with American priorities.

The focus on reducing foreign aid and centralizing USAID under the State Department is not without challenges. An article from Just Security outlines the legal challenges surrounding President Donald Trump’s potential Executive Order (E.O.) to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and transfer its functions to the State Department. While some functions could be shifted by executive action, the full dissolution of the agency requires congressional approval, as outlined in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. The article emphasizes that Congress established USAID as an independent agency, and no authority has been granted to the president for such a sweeping action without legislation.

Sam Worthington, in his analysis of the current U.S. government transition, articulates the fundamental shift that is unfolding, which goes beyond the usual change in administration. He acknowledges that, historically, transitions in power involve the adaptation of U.S. government agencies to accommodate new political priorities, though these shifts are often contentious. However, the present situation is markedly different. “What we are witnessing is not simply a change of leadership; it is a deliberate dismantling of democratic institutions and government structures“. Worthington identifies a calculated strategy that undermines the integrity of governance, including the erosion of USAID, the destruction of its partner workforce, and the halting of life-saving programs. He points to tactics like silencing critics, removing essential protections, and reshaping the workforce with loyalists, all contributing to a broader consolidation of power.

This disruption, as Worthington highlights, carries profound implications, not only within the U.S. but also for its global partners. The impact on foreign assistance is particularly concerning, as countries relying on U.S. aid face significant uncertainty and disruption in critical sectors like health, development, and democracy promotion. Programs that empower vulnerable populations, such as those focused on sanitation, education, and humanitarian aid, are at risk of being halted or severely reduced, further destabilizing already fragile regions.

Despite possible legitimate policy reasons for restructuring USAID and the State Department, dissolving the agency would be seen as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to undermine foreign aid and U.S. government institutions. The consequences of dissolving USAID could have severe global repercussions, particularly for vulnerable populations in conflict zones and countries in need of U.S. assistance.

For countries like those in Africa and other developing nations, the loss of financial and technical support from USAID represents a double tragedy: not only does it undermine critical services, but it also increases pressure on governments to raise taxes or divert limited domestic resources to cover deficits, exacerbating economic hardship. Worthington’s analysis underscores the gravity of the situation, signaling a critical juncture for U.S. foreign policy and its global impact. Here is a summary of the already felt impact from the executive orders:

1. The new U.S. administrative decisions may have introduced uncertainty for African economies that rely on the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a preferential trade agreement with the U.S. A key aspect of U.S. foreign assistance has been building the capacity of African partners to meet AGOA requirements, ensuring that local industries could comply with U.S. trade standards and successfully access American markets. With the new policy direction and increasing scrutiny, many African countries may now face uncertainty regarding their continued participation in AGOA. This raises the question: Will affected nations turn to alternative trade partnerships, including China and the EU, to offset these economic disruptions?

2. Another critical issue is the new African Union-led mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), which faces significant funding challenges. In the last UN Security Council session, one of the permanent members abstained from voting, leaving the question of financing unresolved. The African Union has already raised concerns about how this uncertainty will impact the mission’s implementation. With donor commitments dwindling, the sustainability of security operations in Somalia is now in question. What next for the activities in Somalia? Without sufficient financial backing and an eminent closure of USAID, the gains made in stabilizing the region could be at risk, potentially leading to increased insecurity and a resurgence of militant threats.

3. Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan and South Sudan has worsened following the Stop-to-Work directive set by the U.S. Executive Order, which halted funding to several aid programs. With millions already displaced due to ongoing conflict and famine, this decision has left humanitarian organizations scrambling to maintain critical services. Food security programs, refugee support, and medical aid have all been severely impacted, leaving vulnerable populations at even greater risk. The suspension of funds has not only slowed emergency response efforts but has also threatened long-term recovery initiatives. Without alternative funding sources, the humanitarian situation in the Sudans could spiral into an even greater catastrophe, exacerbating regional instability and increasing migration pressures on neighboring countries.

4. Even as this ambitious initiative promised to transform agriculture in northern Mozambique, its future now hangs in limbo following the recent shifts in U.S. foreign assistance priorities. With USAID funding at risk, the Feed the Future Premier-Oholo (PRO) project may struggle to meet its objectives, potentially leaving thousands of farmers and small business owners without critical support to transition to a market-based agricultural system. The uncertainty surrounding U.S. commitments adds to Mozambique’s existing challenges, as the country continues to face security threats from insurgent groups in Cabo Delgado and economic instability exacerbated by climate shocks and global financial pressures. Without clear assurances on funding continuity, the long-term sustainability of agribusiness development efforts by TechnoServe in the Nacala Corridor remains deeply uncertain.

5. Critical development projects in Ethiopia are in a state of uncertainty, potentially affecting thousands of people who rely on these initiatives for essential services. Among the affected programs is the Climate-Resilient WASH initiative, which was designed to expand and sustain climate-resilient water services in Ethiopia’s pastoral regions. With prior investments of $37 million, this program has been instrumental in addressing water scarcity, improving sanitation, and strengthening resilience against extreme climate conditions.

   Similarly, the USAID Urban Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (Urban WASH) project—which aims to enhance access to sustainable water and sanitation services in Ethiopia’s urban and peri-urban areas—is now in limbo, putting at risk efforts to improve WASH infrastructure and support marginalized communities. Additionally, the Market Systems for Growth (MS4G) project, which has been supporting the private sector’s role in improving WASH services and financial access, now faces an uncertain future. These disruptions could significantly impact Ethiopia’s progress in expanding clean water access, strengthening urban sanitation systems, and fostering market-driven solutions for WASH services, further exacerbating existing socio-economic vulnerabilities in the country.

6. In Tanzania, the Maji Safi Activity, a flagship USAID initiative aimed at improving access to water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) services, now faces an uncertain future due to the recent U.S. Executive Order. This project, which was set to run until 2026, has been instrumental in expanding sustainable water services, increasing access to WASH financing, and strengthening water resource management across multiple districts and water basins. With its work spanning 10 districts and 12 priority catchments within the Rufiji, Lake Nyasa, Lake Tanganyika, and Lake Rukwa basins, the program has played a key role in ensuring rural and urban communities have access to clean water and sanitation. The potential halt in funding threatens the progress made in building resilient WASH systems, fostering market-based sanitation solutions, and advancing gender equality in water governance. The uncertainty surrounding this initiative could set back Tanzania’s efforts in water security and sustainable development, leaving communities vulnerable to waterborne diseases and resource scarcity.

7. The Isoko y’Ubuzima (THRIVE) Activity, in Rwanda, which played a crucial role in improving access to drinking water and sanitation services, is now in a state of uncertainty following the U.S. Executive Order. Running until 2026, this program has been a vital pillar in strengthening WASH governance, expanding sustainable water services, and fostering market-based sanitation solutions across 10 districts, including Nyabihu, Ngororero, Ruhango, and Nyagatare. By working directly with national and district governments, Isoko y’Ubuzima has enhanced local capacity to plan, monitor, and regulate water services, ensuring long-term sustainability. However, with USAID’s support now in question, key investments in infrastructure, market-based sanitation solutions, and water service professionalization could be derailed, threatening Rwanda’s progress toward universal access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation. The potential funding gap could stall crucial initiatives, leaving thousands of households vulnerable to water scarcity, poor hygiene conditions, and increased health risks.

8. In Kenya, the loss of up to 40 plus billion in the health sector spells a tragedy. First, it risks undermining essential healthcare programs, including those addressing HIV/AIDS, maternal health, and disease prevention. With China expressing an increasing interest in the WHO, the geopolitical landscape of global aid is shifting. This raises critical questions for African nations that are already navigating the delicate balance between Western and Eastern alliances. What will it mean for governments seeking to transition from Western dependency to Eastern partnerships? Will Chinese-backed funding come with new conditions, and how will this shape policy decisions in recipient countries?

   Second, the current government is likely to use this shortfall as a justification for imposing more taxes on already struggling Kenyans. With the Finance Bill 2025 on the horizon, this development presents an opportunity for the administration to argue that new and increased taxes are necessary to cover the deficit. Given Kenya’s rising cost of living and public resistance to additional taxation, this move could trigger heightened political tensions and civil unrest. The government will need to carefully navigate public sentiment while balancing the need for revenue generation. However, if history is any indication, taxation measures will likely be pushed through, despite opposition, as a means of filling the funding gap left by the withdrawal of U.S. assistance.

   Third, Kenya’s mission to Haiti received a nod from the Trump administration, according to President William Ruto, signaling a momentous opportunity for continuous international engagement. However, given the unpredictable nature of global politics and his America First policies, it is essential for the Kenyan government to remain agile and prepared for any changes that may arise. While support may seem guaranteed at this stage, shifts in U.S. foreign policy or leadership could quickly alter the trajectory of such missions. Kenya should take this opportunity to learn from the evolving global landscape, strengthening its own diplomatic strategies and partnerships, and positioning itself to navigate any potential setbacks. Rather than complacently assuming continued support, Kenya must anticipate challenges and adapt proactively to ensure its mission remains effective and resilient in the face of changing circumstances.

Beyond Kenya, similar fiscal pressures will emerge across African nations, forcing leaders to make difficult policy decisions. In the absence of alternative funding mechanisms, governments may turn to international lenders, further increasing their debt burden. This scenario underscores the urgent need for African states to strengthen domestic revenue mobilization strategies while reducing over-reliance on foreign aid.

There is some hope, though. Even as hopefully African countries learn and seek alternatives as suggested by Dambisa Moyo in her book Dead Aid, congressional leaders, including Senator Chris Van Hollen, have mobilized against the unprecedented actions taken by the Trump Administration, particularly targeting the federal workforce and critical government functions. Senator Van Hollen’s efforts reflect a broader commitment by Democratic lawmakers to oppose the unlawful power grabs and safeguard the integrity of public institutions. The administration’s attempt to freeze federal funding and dismantle merit-based civil service—such as through the reclassification of employees under Schedule F—has been met with resistance in the form of multiple lawsuits. Van Hollen highlights that 22 states and the District of Columbia have filed a suit to halt the funding freeze, leading to temporary victories such as a court-issued stay. Moreover, unions representing government workers have joined the fight, filing lawsuits to prevent the political reclassification of positions, ensuring that merit-based appointments remain protected.

Such legal actions are being complemented by grassroots efforts, with Van Hollen stressing the importance of public support and mobilization in confronting these assaults. Despite U.S. Republican opposition, which has thus far refrained from pushing back against the administration’s moves, Van Hollen emphasizes the critical role of the courts and the public voice in challenging these dangerous overreaches. With substantial corporate interests and wealthy allies in the backdrop, the ultimate aim is seen as consolidating power and enriching a select few while undermining government accountability. Through continued legal challenges and public outcry, Van Hollen and his colleagues are committed to protecting democracy and ensuring fair governance in the face of what they regard as an assault on the American Constitution.

As practitioners, development partners, stakeholders and governments navigate the uncertainty caused by the recent executive order, I extend a deep appreciation to development partners, practitioners, and individuals who are stepping up to offer new opportunities and provide critical information to those affected. I acknowledge the efforts of Ahamad Alshab, who has provided alternative ways to access USAID documents through the Federal Register, ensuring continued access to essential policies and regulations. I also recognize individuals like Kelvin L. Brown, who have shared valuable insights on alternative funding sources and encouraged resilience in the face of these challenges. Additionally, I appreciate Olga W., for offering much-needed clarity on the executive order, helping organizations understand its scope and the processes for program continuation. These contributions, and others, are instrumental in keeping the sector informed, empowered, and connected during this period of uncertainty. To all those who continue to share resources, advocate for solutions, and support affected communities, we express our sincere gratitude. Your commitment to sustaining development efforts despite the disruptions is commendable and deeply valued.

The coming months will be crucial in determining how the Horn of Africa governments respond to these financial shocks. The key question remains: Will the burden of donor funding cuts be shifted onto the people, or will innovative solutions emerge to bridge the gap?