US foreign policy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘They may be Russian some day’: was this the week that changed the war in Ukraine?

      by

      Volodymyr Zelenskyy has had some tough weeks in the past three years, but this past one may be up there with the worst of them.Back on Monday, in an hour-long interview with the Guardian at his Kyiv offices, the Ukrainian president was in a cautiously optimistic frame of mind. He said he had received “positive signals from the Americans” over upcoming negotiations. His team was working to fix a date for a meeting with Donald Trump, he said, and he was sure that the US president understood the importance of coordinating his position with Kyiv before talking to Russia.Zelenskyy’s main message, which he returned to several times in the interview, was that it was vital for the US to play a key role in enforcing any potential peace settlement. If Ukraine was to be denied Nato membership, it at least required Nato-style guarantees that would deter Vladimir Putin from coming back to bite off more chunks of the country in a year or five. “Security guarantees without America are not real security guarantees,” he said, unequivocally.But the reality of Trump’s second term can come at you fast. By Wednesday, the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, had ruled out both Nato membership for Ukraine and any US role in enforcing a peace deal. Later that day, in a surprise announcement, Trump said he had conducted a 90-minute phone call with Putin, and gave a press conference afterwards during which he proceeded to rip up three years of US rhetoric on supporting Ukraine.In Kyiv, the announcements hit with a shock as jarring as the wall-shaking booms from Iskander missiles that had been shot down on the outskirts of the city in the early hours of that morning.It had been a “bad war to get into” for Ukraine, said Trump, suggesting it was Kyiv’s choice to be invaded. He declined to say that Ukraine would be an equal partner in future negotiations, disparaged Zelenskyy’s poll ratings and repeatedly emphasised that his priority was regaining the money the US had spent on aid to Ukraine over the past few years, bandying around figures that appeared to have been plucked from thin air.View image in fullscreenHe doubled down on Hegseth’s insistence that Ukraine restoring its territorial integrity was unlikely, and even suggested that Russia might in some way deserve to keep the occupied territory because “they took a lot of land and they fought for that land”. The readout of the call said Trump and Putin had talked about the “great history” of their respective nations and discussed the second world war, all of which will have been music to Putin’s ears.Perhaps the Trump comment that caused the most anger in Ukraine was the casual remark in a television interview that “they may be Russian some day, they may not be Russian some day, but we’re gonna have all this money in there and I said I want it back.” It was a flippant dismissal of Ukraine’s existential fight to defend itself from Russian occupation, wrapped up in a demand for cash.In response, Zelenskyy has been walking an unenviable diplomatic tightrope. He knows that if he starts even to gently criticise the US president, it could make things worse for his country. On Monday, he offered careful compliments, tipping his hat to Trump’s “decisiveness”. He repeated the description on Friday at the Munich Security Conference, when JD Vance, the US vice-president, made the keynote speech and hardly mentioned Ukraine, and when there were surely many different words in Zelenskyy’s private thoughts.There is a depressing sense of deja vu to the situation. In the early months of Zelenskyy’s presidency, back in 2019, he got dragged into an impeachment drama after Trump tried to pressure him to investigate Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine. When Trump released a memo of the call, Zelenskyy appeared to be trying to sidestep entering a criminal conspiracy by flattering Trump. (“You are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1,000%,” he said, when Trump criticised European support for Ukraine.)This time, with the stakes even higher and Ukraine’s survival as a state on the line, Zelenskyy’s team has come up with a “victory plan” designed to catch Trump’s eye. Instead of appealing to shared values or European security, neither of which get Trump excited, they instead suggested joint exploitation of Ukraine’s “rare earths” and potentially lucrative contracts for US companies in the reconstruction of postwar Ukraine.“Those who are helping us to save Ukraine will [have the chance to] renovate it, with their businesses together with Ukrainian businesses. All these things we are ready to speak about in detail,” Zelenskyy said on Monday.The pitch worked, and on Wednesday, the US treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, arrived in Kyiv with a draft agreement on natural resources. But reports of the contents suggest it requires Ukraine to hand over 50% of its mineral wealth without being provided with any security guarantees in return. “It made people quite upset,” said one source in Kyiv. Zelenskyy has so far declined to sign.For some officials from other allied nations, many of whom have become deeply personally invested in Ukraine’s fight to throw off Russian domination, the crumbling of US support over the last week has felt like a betrayal.The EU ambassador to Ukraine, Katarína Mathernová, wrote on Facebook that she had attended the funeral of two Ukrainian soldiers in the western city of Lviv on Friday, and “cried like a child” as they were laid to rest. “How can a deal about Ukraine be made without Ukraine? How could such an agreement ever be explained to the families of the thousands of Ukrainian soldiers who have fallen defending the integrity of their homeland?” she asked.Many Ukrainians say they are willing to see concessions made for the sake of a peace deal, after three long years of disrupted lives and thousands of deaths. But the key question of what security guarantees could enforce such a deal looks even harder to answer satisfactorily for Kyiv after Trump’s comments this week.On the other hand, if no deal is done, Ukraine will face an extremely difficult situation militarily. Late last month, the Ukrainska Pravda news outlet quoted Kyrylo Budanov, the head of military intelligence, as telling a closed parliamentary committee that if negotiations did not begin in earnest by summer “dangerous processes could unfold, threatening Ukraine’s very existence”. Budanov later denied making the remarks, and the SBU security service opened an investigation to try to discover the outlet’s sources, showing the sensitivity of the topic.Several sources in Kyiv said that while the frontline has stabilised since late last year, by the beginning of the summer Ukrainian forces may be in trouble, particularly if US military aid deliveries cease. The army is currently dealing with a desertion problem, difficulty in mobilising new troops and intense exhaustion among those at the frontline.View image in fullscreenHowever, some caution against the dangers of rushing into a quick deal, especially now that the spectrum of possibilities on offer from Trump appears to be so troubling. “The earlier we get to the table the worse the outcome will be,” said Vadym Prystaiko, a former foreign minister. “It’s counterintuitive, and I know it’s painful. But there are still ways. We don’t have to give up. There is a Ukrainian saying: ‘Don’t fall down before you’re shot,’” he said.Prystaiko said there ought to be ways to engage Europe more forcefully in the context of a Trump retreat, notably by finally pushing through an agreement on sending Ukraine money from frozen Russian assets. And while the outcomes for Ukraine may look bleak now, many Ukrainians remind outsiders that the country has been written off before. In February 2022 many observers expected the Russian army to overrun Kyiv in days. Instead, the capital remained standing and the population launched a fightback.“Ukraine survived for three years and Russia is still fighting for some villages in the Donbas. It’s a miracle,” said one senior security source. “I don’t believe the front will collapse, but it will get harder. We have time, but we are paying heavily for that time, first of all in the lives of our people.”As well as the future of Ukraine, Zelenskyy has his own political future to consider in the coming weeks. Both Trump and his envoy Keith Kellogg have raised the question of elections, a topic also frequently mentioned by the Kremlin as a supposed reason why they cannot negotiate with him, after his official term ended last year.In the interview on Monday, Zelenskyy bristled and came the closest to a direct criticism of the Trump administration when asked about these demands. “It’s an internal question… nobody, not even someone with a very serious position, can just say, ‘I want elections tomorrow.’ That’s the sovereign right of Ukraine and Ukrainians,” he said.Zelenskyy pointed out the challenges of holding an election in the current climate. Martial law precludes it, and even if there were a ceasefire it is hard to imagine how the logistics of a countrywide vote would work, given the millions of voters living in occupied territories, frontline areas and abroad as refugees.“Will the elections be only when we’ve solved everything in 20 years’ time? No. But we cannot just shout loudly, ‘We want elections.’ Let’s be honest, today our people would see this as something shocking,” he said.Increasingly strident criticism of Zelenskyy can be heard from some Ukrainians, amid complaints about his leadership style and a centralisation of power in the presidential administration. There was also confusion and anger over an ill-timed move this week to place financial sanctions on former president Petro Poroshenko, in what appears to be an act of political revenge. But there are few voices who think that now is the time for a vote.“Our position is that during a war there is no room for politics and especially not for elections,” said Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, an MP from the Fatherland party of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko and a former head of the SBU security agency. “It would be the end for Ukraine. To start political or election activity would mean Putin’s victory the next day.”If some kind of sustainable peace deal is concluded in the coming months, elections might happen later in the year, analysts suggest. The big question will be whether Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the popular former army commander who now serves as ambassador to London, would stand. If he does, informal polls suggest he is likely to win; against other candidates, Zelenskyy has a much better chance.It is widely assumed that Zelenskyy himself plans to stand for another term, although when asked, he claimed that – like so much else in Ukraine – that will depend on what happens in the coming months. “That’s really a rhetorical question for me… I really don’t know. I don’t know how this war will finish,” he said. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Vance to meet Zelenskyy as European leaders call for unity over Ukraine

      by

      The US vice-president, JD Vance, will face calls for greater consultation and coherence when he meets European leaders, including the president of Ukraine, at a security conference in Munich.The timing of Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s meeting with US officials, initially scheduled for Friday morning, remained unclear because the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, had to change his flight from Washington when the plane experienced a mechanical fault.The expected showdown came after 48 hours in which senior members of the Trump administration, including the president, unleashed a volley of contradictory positions on how and when negotiations with Russia about Ukraine’s future would be conducted.In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Vance tried to quell criticism that Donald Trump had made a series of premature and unilateral concessions in a phone call with Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.He said the US would still be prepared to impose sanctions on Russia if Moscow did not accept a satisfactory deal. “There are any number of formulations, of configurations, but we do care about Ukraine having sovereign independence,” he said.Vance added the option of sending US troops to Ukraine if Moscow failed to negotiate in good faith remained “on the table”. He said there were “economic tools of leverage, there are of course military tools of leverage” the US could use against Putin.Before being nominated as vice-president, Vance said he did “not really care about Ukraine’s future, one way or the other”.Rubio added that the US had an interest in the long-term independence of Ukraine, remarks intended to imply some form of security guarantee for Ukraine.Trump has also insisted that any deal would be in consultation with Ukraine, but he has been less emphatic about the involvement of Europeans – an omission that has infuriated leaders of the continent, who believe any Ukrainian settlement will have profound consequences for European security.Trump reiterated that it would not be possible for Ukraine to ever join Nato since Putin would not accept it. In his view, Ukraine is aware of this. “I think that’s how it will have to be,” Trump said.Instead, he foresaw Russia rejoining the G7 group of wealthy countries as part of its reintegration into western economies.The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, who was due to meet his Polish counterpart in Warsaw on Friday, said the US was not making premature concessions.European leaders have long expected Trump would slash US support for Ukraine, but have been shocked by the lack of planning by the administration and the absence of consultation with allies.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe French president joined the chorus of politicians demanding the US adopt a more careful and coordinated approach. “A peace that is a capitulation is bad news for everyone,” Emmanuel Macron said.“The only question at this point is whether President Putin is sincerely, sustainably … prepared for a ceasefire on that basis,” he said, adding that Europe would have a “role to play” in regional security discussions.The most angry response from a senior European politician came from Kaja Kallas, the new EU foreign policy chief and former Estonian president.“Why are we giving them [Russia] everything they want even before the negotiations have started? It’s appeasement. It has never worked,” she said, adding that Nato membership for Ukraine was the “strongest” and “cheapest” security guarantee available.She suggested the war would continue with European support if Zelenskyy was cut out of the talks. “If there is agreement made behind our backs, it simply will not work,” Kallas said. “The Ukrainians will resist and we will support them.”Hegseth also downplayed the relevance of European values to security policy: “We can talk all we want about values. Values are important. But you can’t shoot values. You can’t shoot flags and you can’t shoot strong speeches. There is no replacement for hard power.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Oh, Canada! Can Trump just take it? – podcast

      by

      Archive: 10 News First, BBC News, CBC News, CTV News, Fox News, NBC News, CNN, CBS News
      Listen to The Audio Long Read on Trump’s tariff plan with China
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/politcspodus More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The heartlessness of the deal: how Trump’s ‘America first’ stance sold out Ukraine

      by

      In Donald Trump’s world, everything has its price.There is no place for sentiment in his politics. Common values cannot secure loans for military aid. And the US president does not care who controls the blood-soaked soils of east Ukraine, so long as he can access the rare earth minerals that lie beneath.The peace Trump will negotiate is not about justice. There is no deeper moral or morality here except for who “got it done”, and Trump has signaled that he is ready to pressure Ukraine and Europe to provide concessions to entice Russia to sign on the dotted line.All that’s left for him is to hash out a price.“I’m just here to try and get peace,” Trump said in the Oval Office, where he riffs out policy daily. “I don’t care so much about anything other than I want to stop having millions of people killed.”It is difficult to put into words what an about-face this is for US support for Ukraine, which for years was built on helping the country defend itself, though not win the war.The Biden administration helped manage the symptoms of Russian aggression. Now, Trump says he’s going to provide the cure. But it is an unwelcome one: stop resisting.Since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, the adage in the Oval Office had been “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”. Biden officials regularly said in public that Ukraine itself would decide when it was ready to negotiate.But that was before the US election. It wasn’t the issue of Ukrainian manpower or the supply of weapons that ultimately brought us to this point; it was the price of eggs in Pennsylvania. The Biden administration’s biggest betrayal of Ukraine may have been to lose the US elections, effectively surrendering Ukraine’s second front to “America first”.“We’re the thing that’s holding it back, and frankly, we’ll go as long as we have to go, because we’re not going to let the other happen,” said Trump, in what may be the only silver lining of his remarks on Monday, indicating he wouldn’t allow Ukraine to collapse completely. “But President Putin wants that peace now, and that’s good, and he didn’t want to have peace with Biden.”Some Ukrainian and Russian observers may believe the US president has a deeper plan here, perhaps to consolidate Europe and then pressure Russia as a united front while sinking the oil price. But judging by his actions in Gaza, or in the United States, there is likely to be no deeper plan.Assigning Steve Witkoff, his go-to dealmaker who negotiated the Gaza ceasefire-for-hostages deal, rather than the hawkish Gen Keith Kellogg, indicates that the process will be maximally unsentimental. Just another real estate deal.Now, much of Europe is wondering whether Trump is about to deliver them a fait accompli on their eastern flank, seeking to commit European troops with no Nato protection to Ukraine in a security agreement negotiated exclusively between Moscow and Washington.“What’s left to negotiate?” read one text message from a European official, who called it a “surrender”.In fact, that was just Trump’s opening offer.Russia has indicated it wants him to go further. In a communique, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, said he wanted the deal to address the “origins of the conflict”, which he has previously said include Ukraine’s pro-western stance and the Nato expansions of the 2000s and 1990s.He may seek to turn back the clock, said another European official, and demand that US forces stationed in the Baltics, Poland and other former communist countries return, raising concerns about further Russian land grabs without American troops there to guarantee their defense.Such an outcome seemed even more possible on Thursday, when Trump’s defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, told his Nato counterparts that a reduction of US troop levels in Europe could be part of any deal.In effect, Trump is negotiating with Europe, not Russia. Europe has issued its counteroffer: treat us as a partner and give us a seat at the table.“We shouldn’t take anything off the table before the negotiations have even started,” said Kaja Kallas, the EU’s foreign policy chief, before the Nato meeting on Thursday. “It is clear that any deal behind our backs will not work. You need the Europeans, you need the Ukrainians.”That depends what Trump plans to do next, as Hegseth made clear. “Everything is on the table,” he said. “In his conversations with Vladimir Putin and Zelenskyy, what he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world: President Trump.”The question is who is in that free world now, and what is the price of entry. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump tariffs: what are reciprocal tariffs and how will they affect US consumers?

      by

      Donald Trump has once again threatened to impose a wave of tariffs on US imports, stepping up his bid to overhaul the global economic order.On Thursday, the US president said he plans to introduce “reciprocal” tariffs, ensuring the US imposes the same taxes on its imports from the rest of the world that American goods face in other countries.“It’s fair to all,” said Trump. “No other country can complain.”The latest announcement follows a string of others from the Trump administration, promising tariffs on both America’s close allies and economic rivals. But most have yet to be enforced.Here’s what we know about Trump’s tariffs so far:What are the tariffs has Trump announced?No new tariffs were announced on Thursday. Instead, the president ordered his officials to investigate which countries the US should target with import duties.The White House has previously said it would place a 25% tariff on goods from Canada and Mexico, introduce a 10% levy on Canadian energy exports, and amend duties on steel and aluminum from all over the world.So far, the only new duty that has come into force under Trump is a a new 10% tariff on goods from China..What is a tariff and why does Trump want to use it against certain countries?A tariff is a tax levied on foreign goods imported into a country. The US is currently the largest goods importer in the world – in 2022, the value of imported goods in the US totalled $3.2tn.Before entering office, Trump threatened tariffs on the US’s three biggest trading partners: China, Mexico and Canada. Specifically, he said he wanted to see a 25% tariff on Mexico and Canada and a 10% tariff on China, until the countries deal with immigrants and illegal drugs coming into the US.Trump sees tariffs as a powerful bargaining chip – but it comes with a high price.Trump frames tariffs as a policy that can apply pressure on US manufacturers and importers to produce goods domestically.“All you have to do is build your plant in the United States, and you don’t have any tariffs,” Trump has said. But the global economy has been intertwined for decades. US farmers, for example, would not be able to produce the number of avocados Mexico produces for many years.What this means is that importers will probably push the cost of tariffs on to consumers, causing prices to rise.What is a reciprocal tariff?On the campaign trail and in the White House, Trump has repeatedly raised the prospect of a wave of “reciprocal” duties: taxing imports from certain countries at the same rate those countries impose on goods from the US.The president and his allies have pitched this as a great rebalancing of the global economy, which they claim has been tilted against the US for too long.How will US consumers be affected by the tariffs?Tariffs on imports often make prices go up.Canada, for example, is a major exporter of crude oil, while Mexico exports many fresh fruits and vegetables. Mexico is also the largest auto parts exporter to the US. China is a major exporter of chips used in electronics like phones and laptops.It’s not just the imports that consumers buy directly. When tariffs push up the price of imports, that includes imported materials used to make other products domestically in the US. Higher prices for materials will eventually make their way to consumers.Americans have been bracing for the impact tariffs will have on prices. In a November Harris/Guardian poll, nearly two-thirds of Americans said they expected prices to go up if Trump implements broad tariffs.Which federal laws give Trump the power to enact tariffs?US federal law gives the president broad powers to enact tariffs without congressional approval.Trump has the power to declare a national economic emergency to enact his tariffs. This would invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to manage imports during a national emergency.Trump can also apply tariffs under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which gives the president power to impose tariffs on certain industries. This is what Trump used in 2018, when he hit Canada, Mexico and the European Union with tariffs on aluminum and steel.Have a question about Trump tariffs? Wondering how they affect inflation, prices or the economy? We’re here to help. Email callum.jones@theguardian.com and we may answer your question in a future story More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says US prices ‘could go up’ as he threatens new tariffs on trade partners

      by

      Donald Trump threatened to ramp up his economic assault on some of America’s biggest trading partners on Thursday, vowing to impose new tariffs on countries that target products made in the US within weeks.The US will impose “reciprocal” duties, the president announced. “We want a level playing field,” he declared in the Oval Office, pledging to roll out a “beautiful, simple system” of new US import duties that match those imposed by other countries.No new specific tariffs were announced, however, triggering a relief rally on Wall Street. Instead, Trump signed a presidential memorandum ordering the development of a comprehensive plan to address what the White House described as “longstanding imbalances” in the global economy.Americans could face “some short-term disturbance” if the US imposes higher tariffs on foreign goods, Trump acknowledged. “Prices could go up somewhat short-term,” he said. “But prices will also go down.”“What will go up is jobs,” claimed Trump. “The jobs will go up tremendously.”The US commerce department, now led by the billionaire Howard Lutnick, will conduct studies and report back to the president at the start of April. No exemptions will be offered from any “reciprocal” duties introduced under the new plan, Trump suggested.It is the latest bid by Trump to strain Washington’s trade ties with countries across the world – allies and rivals alike – to obtain political and economic concessions.A press notice circulated by the Trump administration promised it would take action to “put the American worker first, improve our competitiveness in every area of industry, reduce our trade deficit, and bolster our economic and national security”.US officials pointed to a series of examples of tariffs and other trade barriers that they said demonstrated how other countries were not treating the US fairly. They pointed to the European Union’s 10% tariff on cars, alongside the 2.5% US tariff on cars, and claimed that shellfish from 48 states cannot be exported to the EU, while the bloc “can export all the shellfish it wants to America”.They also cited a 100% tariff imposed by India on US motorcycles, while the US only charges 2.4%, and an 18% duty in Brazil on US ethanol, while the US charges 2.5%.Trump is due to meet Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister, later on Thursday. Addressing reporters, he argued the EU was “very nasty”, adding: “They don’t treat us right on trade.”He also suggested that the US could hit the so-called Brics alliance – which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – with 100% tariffs, if it sought to undermine the US dollar.Trump also called for Russia’s return to the G7 group of industrialised nations, saying it had been a mistake for Moscow to be expelled. Russia was suspended from the group – then known as the G8 – in 2014, following the annexation of Crimea, and announced its permanent withdrawal in 2017.While the president and his allies believe that higher taxes on imports will help “make America great again”, they have also claimed the mere threat of higher tariffs from the world’s largest economy can prompt nations to bend to Trump’s will.Trump had trailed this announcement for days, at first promising news on Tuesday or Wednesday, before claiming early on Thursday that he would announce reciprocal tariffs – “THE BIG ONE”, he wrote on social media – later in the day. In the event, no specific new tariffs were announced.The administration has so far threatened more tariffs than it has introduced. Duties on Colombia were shelved when it agreed to accept military aircraft carrying deported immigrants; duties on Canada and Mexico have been repeatedly delayed; and modified duties on steel and aluminum, announced earlier this week, will not be enforced until next month.An additional 10% tariff on goods from China is, for now, the only threatened trade attack actually enforced since Trump returned to the White House. On Friday, it emerged that a key component of this – removing the longstanding duty-free status of low-cost packages – had been delayed.Trump’s fixation with tariffs has alarmed economists, who have warned their imposition may derail his repeated promises to rapidly bring down prices for millions of Americans.Inflation is already proving stubborn. In January, as Trump returned to office, it ticked up to an annualized rate of 3%. Egg prices have been soaring in recent months, as many US consumers continue to grapple with the elevated cost of living.Trump said he would not commission any studies into how his mooted tariffs could affect prices for Americans. “There’s nothing to study,” he said. “It’s going to go well.”Asked whether the Trump administration’s plan to align US tariffs with those imposed by other countries risked raising prices for US consumers, Lutnick – standing alongside the president – sought to shift responsibility onto other countries. “​If they drop their tariffs, prices for Americans are going down​,”​ he said.Trump has frequently highlighted the US’s trade deficit with the world – the fact that the value of its imports greatly exceeds that of its exports – as evidence of unfairness.“Closed markets” overseas reduce US exports, while “open markets at home result in significant imports”, the White House notice said, arguing that this had undercut the US’s ability to compete. More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump and Musk’s attack on USAid is causing global chaos. Millions of lives are now at risk | Devi Sridhar

      by

      Amid the daily troubling news coming from the United States are the ongoing and increasingly damaging efforts by President Donald Trump, supported by secretary of state Marco Rubio and Elon Musk, to shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAid). Musk has called it a “criminal organization” and said that it was “time for it to die”. The agency website is down, so little official information is available. But in the week since funding to the agency was frozen, and the majority of staff placed on leave, thousands of public health and development programmes worldwide have been thrown into turmoil, and now face an uncertain future.USAid is the main federal agency that works to provide foreign aid assistance to the poorest countries and people in the world. On Friday, a US judge prevented around 2,000 USAid employees from being placed on leave, and ordered the reinstatement of about 500 more. But Trump and Musk appear to want to move forward with a plan that would see its global workforce reduced from about 10,000 staff and contractors, to just over 600.It’s hard to overstate how disruptive this has already been to humanitarian work worldwide: most programmes have just been shut overnight with staff laid off, drugs and food left in warehouses, and patients and others not able to access services. The people affected live in some of the most vulnerable countries like Ukraine, Jordan, Ethiopia, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Afghanistan.Although we don’t know the full extent of the damage, specific reports suggest that vital services have been thrown into chaos. Some walk-in sexual health and HIV services in South Africa shuttered overnight without notice, Ethiopia’s health ministry has reportedly laid off 5,000 healthcare professionals who were hired with US funding, and nearly half a billion dollars worth of food aid overseen by the agency and currently in ports, transit or storage is destined to spoil.USAid’s overall contribution is immense. It is the largest humanitarian operator globally – in 2023, the US provided 42% of all humanitarian assistance or about $68bn (£55bn), of which USAid spending made up about $40bn. And yet at the same time, both foreign aid and USAid specifically make up a tiny fraction of federal government spending: less than 1%. Cutting back makes little difference to overall US government spending, but is massively destructive to programmes reliant on this funding to deliver their on-the-ground work.What does that less than 1% of federal spending buy the US public? This argument has been re-hashed in presidency after presidency, and the answers are clear.Foreign aid can reduce instability, conflict and extreme poverty, which are major causes of mass displacement. Supporting programmes that keep more places safe and stable means fewer people needing to flee persecution, dire poverty or violence. With all the concerns over illegal immigration, reducing aid could make this challenge even harder to manage. Foreign aid can support countries to grow economically and create new markets and opportunities. Think of places like India, which have managed to create a vibrant and growing middle class.In the world of global health, foreign aid is vital to support countries in managing health challenges, including outbreaks of infectious diseases. Just think back to the west Africa Ebola outbreak in 2014. Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone struggled to contain Ebola spreading and were reliant on international partners to assist them. It was in the interest of all countries to help them given that the global spread of Ebola was imminent. In addition, the US builds vital soft power and influence in countries in which it provides help. Russia and China have learned this lesson – and will probably step into the aid vacuum left by the US.And beyond any of those “enlightened self-interest” arguments above is the simple fact that foreign aid helps other human beings who are struggling, including some of the poorest and most vulnerable in the world. It’s good to do because it’s simply good to do. Cutting programmes overnight means that women who might have lived are more likely to die in childbirth; those with HIV face not having access to clinics for lifesaving antiretroviral treatment; and hungry children no longer get nutritional supplements and food.Foreign aid shouldn’t be a partisan issue. The largest global health programme for a single disease, Pepfar, was launched by a Republican president, George W Bush, and is estimated to have prevented 25 million Aids deaths since its creation. I think back to a poll of Americans in 2016 by the Kaiser Family Foundation, where more than 60% of respondents said that the US was spending either the right amount or too little on global health, and only about 30% thought it was spending too much. It’s not clear that the US public actually supports these drastic cuts and freezes.Perhaps many now think that the US needs to worry more about its own domestic financial troubles than sending money overseas. A recent study found that the US economy is performing better than any of its peer countries, but performs worse on other metrics like health, happiness and social trust. “Wealthy but unhappy” is what the study’s authors found. Maybe the lesson here is that Americans need to reject Trump’s discourse and embrace being part of a global community and engaging with the world through agencies like USAid. That could lead to an America that is still wealthy, but just a bit more healthy and happy.

      Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh More