Around US$489 million of food assistance in warehouses and transit is at risk of spoilage due to President Donald Trump’s US Agency for International Development (USAID) funding freeze, says the USAID Office of Inspector General (IG). Experts have warned of the catastrophic consequences of dismantling the agency on health and nutrition programs, with stark warnings of human fatalities.

USAID provides more than 40% of the global humanitarian aid and employs around 10,000 people. However, Trump announced sweeping cuts to the agency’s workforce and the immediate 90-day suspension of almost all aid programs, with the entire staff put on administrative leave over the weekend.

The government issued an exemption for emergency “food saving assistance,” but the freeze has triggered immediate global chaos and a lack of clarity at the agency and for organizations worldwide that receive USAID funding.

“USAID-funded implementers face conflicting instructions, and USAID staff express concerns about potentially circumventing the restrictions on external communications by providing clarifying guidance,” says the IG in its report. 

 “According to USAID staff, this uncertainty put more than US$489 million of food assistance at ports, in transit, and warehouses at risk of spoilage, unanticipated storage needs, and diversion.”

“America First” strategy

Trump is a long-time critic of overseas funding and has expressed a desire to bring government spending in line with what he calls an “America First” strategy. The Administration has targeted USAID for “unexplainable” spending and branded the agency a waste of taxpayer’s money. 

Dr Oliver Walton, an expert in international development issues at Bath University, tells Food Ingredients First that the funding freeze is “devastating.”

“The freezing of most aid programs will, therefore, have a devastating effect on the global humanitarian system. I think the impact will be most keenly felt in relation to USAID’s global health and nutrition programs,” he says.

“The US is a major funder of many programs that work to reduce the transmission of diseases such as HIV and Tuberculosis. Cuts to these programs will likely lead directly to an increase in child mortality and the spread of disease in recipient countries. The cuts are likely to lead to lasting damage to organizations across the global south who work on these issues.”

Dr. Ryan Jablonski, a professor of political science at the London School of Economics, says the most significant shock about the announcement is its speed.

He tells Food Ingredients First that it is a “monumental disruption” and there is no doubt “it will cost human lives.”

“In the space of a week, the US has gone from being one of the biggest foreign aid donors to USAID being cut at the knees. It’s perfectly possible that other countries could come in and cover the costs, but it’s the disruption to the presence and access the US has in getting aid into other countries and into the public health systems of other countries across the world that has the biggest impact,” says Jablonski.

He explains that this includes medications and food supplies. Reorganizing this is not something that can “just be done overnight,” Jablonski adds.

Looking ahead

It could also be a costly strategic mistake for the US regarding foreign policy “leverage.”

“People at USAID have connections to policymakers around the world and know how things work, and they simply aren’t there anymore and are unlikely to come back.” 

“This is lost ‘leverage’ for the US government because they no longer have this influence and expertise at the various levels of the decision-making chain,” Jablonski stresses.

People involved in the food supply chain and other aid could also feel the sudden impact. 

Dr. Lata Narayanaswamy, a professor in the politics of global development at Leeds University, shares with Food Ingredients First: “What we can, in my view, mourn is the very sudden loss of resources to support service delivery and the sudden loss of livelihoods at the stroke of a pen that is linked to these aid supply chains, without a care for whether safety nets exist to support both workers and users of those services.”

Jablonski suspects funding won’t completely disappear in the long term but will instead be subsumed into the foreign affairs department. 

“This is similar to what we’ve seen in the UK with DFID [former Department for International Development], with the money possibly being spent on things like trade or refugees that are new foreign policy priorities.”