The U.S. State Department has announced a comprehensive freeze on nearly all foreign assistance worldwide, effective immediately. This decision comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order issued on January 22, 2025, which put a hold on such aid for a period of 90 days.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio communicated this significant policy shift through a cable sent to all U.S. diplomatic posts, which has left humanitarian and State Department officials grappling with the implications of the freeze.
The freeze poses a substantial threat to billions of dollars in funding from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which supports a variety of critical programs globally. Historically, foreign assistance has faced criticism from Republicans in Congress and Trump administration officials; however, it constitutes a relatively small fraction of the overall U.S. budget. The broad scope of the executive order and Rubio’s subsequent communication has sent shockwaves through the humanitarian sector.
The cable instructs an immediate “stop work” order on existing foreign assistance programs and pauses any new aid initiatives. It is notably extensive in its reach, impacting nearly all foreign assistance unless explicitly exempted. Consequently, this freeze could affect essential services, including lifesaving global health aid, development assistance, military aid, and clean water distribution efforts.
In the cable, only two exceptions are provided: emergency food assistance and foreign military financing for Israel and Egypt. Notably, the communication does not clarify the status of other nations receiving military financing, such as Ukraine and Taiwan, which raises concerns among officials regarding the implications for U.S. foreign relations.
Over the next month, the administration plans to develop criteria for reviewing whether foreign assistance aligns with President Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The cable indicates that decisions regarding the continuation, modification, or termination of programs will be based on this review, which is expected to be completed within 85 days.
In a public statement, Rubio emphasized the administration’s intention to scrutinize all spending: “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” This focus reflects a broader intent to align U.S. foreign aid with national interests, a stance that may lead to significant shifts in international humanitarian efforts.
The ramifications of the freeze on foreign assistance are profound, particularly given the United States’ status as the world’s largest humanitarian donor. A humanitarian official remarked, “It’s a global freak out at the moment,” indicating the immediate distress this announcement has caused in the international community.
InterAction, an alliance of international nongovernmental organizations, issued a statement expressing deep concern over the freeze, noting that it disrupts critical lifesaving initiatives. These initiatives include providing clean water to infants, basic education for children, combating the trafficking of girls, and delivering essential medications to those in need. The statement highlights that the cessation of assistance could adversely impact countries vital to U.S. interests, such as Taiwan, Syria, and Pakistan.
The recent suspension of programs not only undermines America’s global leadership but also creates vacuums that adversaries like China are poised to exploit. One humanitarian official expressed that the sudden halt is exceptionally disruptive, calling the specifics of the cable “as bad as can be.” Another official indicated they were prepared for potential cuts but were taken aback by the magnitude and immediacy of the pause.
In his executive order, President Trump criticized the U.S. foreign aid framework, claiming it was misaligned with American interests and, in many instances, counter to American values. However, some officials argue that various assistance programs—particularly those addressing global health—are fundamentally in the U.S. interest and have historically enjoyed bipartisan support. An official emphasized, “Making sure there are not pandemics is in our interest. Global stability is in our interest.”
Democratic Representatives Gregory Meeks of New York and Lois Frankel of Florida raised alarms in a letter to Rubio regarding the impact of the freeze on critical programs, such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI). These programs rely on a steady supply of medicines and have received bipartisan backing since their inception under Republican President George W. Bush.
Meeks, serving as the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with Frankel, a member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Subcommittee, emphasized the importance of these funds. They argued that individuals across the globe—especially in conflict-ridden regions like Gaza, Sudan, Haiti, and Ukraine—depend on uninterrupted U.S. aid.
In their letter, they noted, “Congress has appropriated and cleared these funds for use, and it is our constitutional duty to make sure these funds are spent as directed. These funds respond directly to your stated challenge of carrying out a foreign policy that makes the United States stronger, safer, and more prosperous.”
The International AIDS Society expressed grave concern on Saturday about the potential ramifications of halting PEPFAR funding, warning that it could jeopardize millions of lives. IAS President Beatriz Grinsztejn stated, “This is a matter of life or death. PEPFAR provides lifesaving antiretrovirals for more than 20 million people—and stopping its funding essentially stops their HIV treatment. If that happens, people are going to die, and HIV will resurge.”
As the freeze on foreign assistance takes effect, the implications for global health, humanitarian aid, and international relations remain uncertain. The U.S. faces a crucial moment in determining the future of its foreign aid strategy, with significant consequences for millions of vulnerable individuals around the world who depend on American assistance for their survival and well-being. The actions taken in the coming months will undoubtedly shape the landscape of U.S. foreign relations and humanitarian efforts for years to come.
