Introduction
In a dramatic policy reversal that highlights the volatile nature of the current administration's approach to foreign assistance, the Trump administration has reinstated several recently canceled foreign aid programs for emergency food assistance—but notably maintained cuts to Afghanistan and Yemen, two of the world's most impoverished and war-ravaged nations. This partial reversal comes after widespread criticism from humanitarian organizations and amid internal pressure from within the government following what was initially a sweeping termination of aid contracts worth over $1.3 billion.
The Initial Cuts
Late last week, the administration sent notices terminating funding for United Nations World Food Program (WFP) emergency programs in more than a dozen countries. These cuts affected critical humanitarian programs that provide food, water, and medicine to vulnerable populations worldwide.
According to the WFP, the United States had informed the organization that funding for emergency food assistance in 14 countries had been terminated. In a stark warning, the WFP stated: "If implemented, this could amount to a death sentence for millions of people facing extreme hunger and starvation" AP News1.
The cuts were part of a broader effort to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and dramatically reduce foreign assistance, a process being overseen by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Trump adviser Elon Musk.
The Partial Reversal
By Tuesday, in what appears to be an abrupt course correction, the administration moved to reinstate at least six recently canceled U.S. foreign aid programs for emergency food assistance. According to Reuters, USAID Acting Deputy Administrator Jeremy Lewin, who is also an employee of DOGE, asked staff in an internal email to reverse the terminations. He requested the restoration of awards to the World Food Programme in Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, Jordan, Iraq, and Ecuador Reuters2.
"Sorry for all the back and forth on awards," Lewin wrote in his email, acknowledging the confusion caused by the rapid-fire policy changes.
In addition to the WFP programs, the administration has also resumed four awards to the International Organization for Migration in the Pacific region.
Afghanistan and Yemen: Still Cut Off
While some programs have been reinstated, the administration has maintained the cuts for Afghanistan and Yemen—countries where millions of people depend on humanitarian assistance.
State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said there were concerns that WFP funding for Yemen and Afghanistan was benefiting the Houthis and the Taliban, respectively. "The funding that was provided to the WFP for use in Yemen was determined to be inconsistent with America's interest in stopping the killing of innocent civilians," Bruce said Reuters2.
The impact of these maintained cuts could be devastating:
In Afghanistan, a WFP assessment showed that food assistance to 2 million people would be terminated, and more than 650,000 malnourished children, mothers, and pregnant women would lose nutritional support.
In Yemen, the cuts would end lifesaving food assistance to 2.4 million people and halt nutritional care for 100,000 children AP News1.
More than half of Afghanistan's population—some 23 million people—need humanitarian assistance after decades of conflict, including the 20-year U.S. war with the Taliban, as well as entrenched poverty and climate shocks. Last year, the United States provided 43% of all international humanitarian funding to Afghanistan.
Yemen, the poorest Arab country, has been embroiled in civil war since 2014 when Iranian-backed Houthi rebels seized much of the north, including the capital, Sanaa. The U.S. had supported a Saudi-led coalition that intervened the following year on behalf of the government.
Context of the Broader Policy Shift
These recent changes in foreign aid policy are part of a larger transformation in how the Trump administration approaches international assistance. Shortly after returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump ordered a freeze on all foreign assistance for 90 days ABC News3.
Jeremy Lewin, a senior official from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, has taken on a leadership role at USAID, overseeing what appears to be a dramatic restructuring of the agency. The administration has characterized this process not as the elimination of aid but as a fundamental restructuring of how aid is delivered.
"This is not about getting rid of aid. This is about restructuring how we're going to do aid," Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated ABC News3.
Reactions and Concerns
The whipsawing nature of these decisions—cutting, then partially restoring aid—has drawn criticism from humanitarian organizations and experts.
Bob Kitchen, head of global emergencies for the International Rescue Committee, expressed concern about the human cost: "Kids who have seen great violence, who benefit from social work and psychosocial care that we provide, will be cut off" AP News1.
Nathaniel Raymond, executive director of the Humanitarian Research Lab at the Yale School of Public Health, questioned the administration's understanding of the systems they are dismantling, describing the cuts as "a potential extinction-level event" for two generations of humanitarian gains AP News1.
Aid officials have warned that the cuts could further destabilize regions already prone to conflict and exacerbate humanitarian crises that have taken decades to address.
The Broader Implications
The quick reversal of decisions made just days ago underscores the volatile nature of the Trump administration's approach to foreign aid. This pattern of cutting, restoring, and then cutting again has disrupted international humanitarian operations and created uncertainty for both aid recipients and organizations implementing these programs.
The administration has canceled billions of dollars in foreign aid since President Trump began his second term, citing concerns about waste and the advancement of what they characterize as "liberal causes." However, previous administrations had viewed such aid as a way of alleviating conflict, combating poverty and extremism, and curbing migration.
The specific concerns about funding potentially benefiting groups like the Houthis and the Taliban highlight the complex geopolitical considerations that influence aid decisions. However, humanitarian organizations argue that these concerns should be addressed without cutting off essential support to vulnerable civilians who are caught in the crossfire of these conflicts.
Looking Forward
As the administration continues to reshape its approach to foreign aid, the future remains uncertain for millions of people who depend on U.S. assistance. The partial restoration of some programs offers a glimmer of hope that humanitarian considerations may still influence policy decisions, but the maintained cuts to Afghanistan and Yemen suggest that geopolitical concerns will continue to play a significant role in determining where and how aid is delivered.
The international community will be watching closely to see if further reversals or adjustments are made in the coming days and weeks, particularly as the human cost of these decisions becomes more apparent.
For now, millions of people in two of the world's most vulnerable countries remain at risk, caught between geopolitical calculations and humanitarian imperatives.
This blog post was compiled using information from multiple reliable sources, including AP News, Reuters, and ABC News, to provide a comprehensive overview of the current situation regarding U.S. foreign aid policy.
