The Trump Administration’s Foreign Aid Review: Status of U.S. Support for CEPI – KFF

Report on the Impact of U.S. Executive Actions on Foreign Assistance and the Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Actions and Their Consequences

A series of executive actions initiated at the start of the presidential administration has fundamentally altered the United States’ approach to foreign assistance, creating significant setbacks for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary actions taken include:

1. An executive order mandating a 90-day review of all foreign aid.
2. A subsequent “stop-work order” that froze payments and services for ongoing projects.
3. The dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), involving the reduction of most staff and contractors.
4. The cancellation of the majority of foreign assistance awards.

Direct Implications for SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The disruption of U.S. global health programs presents a direct and severe threat to the progress of SDG 3. The consequences have undermined multiple health targets:

• The termination of established health programs jeopardizes global efforts to combat epidemics, reduce maternal mortality, and ensure healthy lives for all ages.
• A waiver intended to permit life-saving humanitarian assistance has proven difficult for implementers to obtain and is limited in scope, failing to sustain comprehensive health services.
• Proposed budget cuts and reorganization within the Department of Health and Human Services are expected to further compromise the operational capacity of programs crucial for achieving SDG 3.

Broader Ramifications for Interconnected SDGs

The impact of these policy changes extends beyond public health, affecting a network of interconnected development goals.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): By halting health-related aid, these actions risk exacerbating poverty cycles and widening inequalities, as health is a fundamental component of economic stability and social equity.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The disruption of global health initiatives, many of which specifically support maternal health and services for women and girls, constitutes a significant setback for gender equality.

Erosion of Global Partnerships and Institutional Frameworks

The executive actions have weakened the foundational pillars required to achieve the 2030 Agenda, particularly those related to international cooperation and institutional strength.

• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The unilateral cancellation of awards and the freezing of funds have damaged international partnerships, undermining the collaborative spirit essential for global development.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions): The dissolution of USAID represents the weakening of a key institution for global development and diplomacy. Concurrently, the limited success of legal challenges against these actions raises concerns about the stability of institutional processes.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• The article directly addresses this goal by stating that “U.S. global health programs have been disrupted and, in some cases, ended.” It also highlights the issuance of a waiver for “life-saving humanitarian assistance,” which is intrinsically linked to health and well-being. The proposed cuts and reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services are also mentioned as likely to affect these programs.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• This goal is central to the article’s theme. The text describes a fundamental shift in “foreign assistance” and the “dissolution of USAID,” which is a primary agency for international development partnerships. The actions described, such as the “stop-work order that froze all payments” and the “cancellation of most foreign assistance awards,” represent a significant disruption to the partnerships between the U.S. and recipient countries for achieving sustainable development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Targets under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.3: By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases. The disruption of “U.S. global health programs” directly jeopardizes progress on this target, as many of these programs are focused on combating such diseases.
• Target 3.c: Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries. The “dissolution of USAID, including the reduction of most staff and contractors,” and the freezing of payments directly contradict this target by reducing both financing and the human resources dedicated to global health.

Targets under SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

• Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments. The article’s mention of the “cancellation of most foreign assistance awards” indicates a failure to meet this target.
• Target 17.9: Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the Sustainable Development Goals. The “dissolution of USAID” is a direct blow to this target, as the agency is a key instrument for U.S.-led capacity-building efforts abroad.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Indicators for SDG 3 Targets

• The article does not provide quantitative data but implies indicators through its descriptions. The status of “U.S. global health programs” (i.e., whether they are active, disrupted, or ended) serves as a qualitative indicator for progress on health targets. The freezing of “all payments and services” implies that financial flows for health, a key indicator, have been halted.

Indicators for SDG 17 Targets

• Implied Indicator for Target 17.2: The volume of Official Development Assistance (ODA). The “cancellation of most foreign assistance awards” and the freezing of payments directly imply a sharp decrease in the total amount of U.S. foreign aid, which is a primary indicator (Indicator 17.2.1: Net official development assistance).
• Implied Indicator for Target 17.9: Resources provided for capacity-building. The “dissolution of USAID” and the “reduction of most staff and contractors” imply a reduction in both financial and human resources allocated to capacity-building in developing countries.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: kff.org