Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Just the Facts: Foreign Aid

News

USAID flag outside a building

A USAID flag outside a building.

J. David Ake/Getty Images

Our ongoing series, “Just the Facts,” strives to approach news stories with both an open mind and skepticism, so we may present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we look to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.

How much and what percentage of total foreign aid has been cut since President Trump's inauguration?


Since President Trump's inauguration, the U.S. has significantly reduced its foreign aid budget. The Trump administration cut over 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts, amounting to approximately $60 billion. This dramatic reduction aligns with the administration's "America First" agenda, which prioritizes domestic interests over international aid.

What percentage of the total budget is the $60 billion dollars cut from foreign aid?

The U.S. federal budget for the fiscal year 2024 was approximately $6.75 trillion. If we compare $60 billion to this total, it represents about 0.89% of the entire budget.

Are there any legal challenges to the foreign aid the Trump administration has cut?

There have been legal challenges to the Trump administration's foreign aid cuts. One notable case involved a freeze on nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funding. A federal judge ruled that the freeze was unlawful, stating that it violated the separation of powers by overriding Congress's authority to allocate funds. The Supreme Court later declined to block this ruling, effectively requiring the administration to release the funds.

These legal battles highlight the tension between executive authority and congressional control over budgetary decisions.

Have the funds been released since the court ruling?

Following the court ruling, the Trump administration was ordered to release nearly $2 billion in frozen foreign aid payments. The funds were gradually disbursed to comply with the court's decision, although the process faced delays and logistical challenges. Some payments were released immediately, while others required additional reviews before being distributed.

Which department of the government is in charge of foreign aid, how many federal foreign aid workers have been fired, and how much money has been saved?

The U.S. Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) are primarily responsible for managing foreign aid. The Office of Foreign Assistance within the State Department oversees the strategic direction and coordination of foreign aid programs.

Under the Trump administration, significant workforce reductions occurred at USAID. Reports indicate that nearly 1,600 USAID employees were laid off globally. Additionally, broader federal workforce cuts affected tens of thousands of employees across various departments.

As for savings, the Trump administration claimed that terminating foreign aid programs and reducing the workforce saved tens of billions of dollars. However, the exact financial impact of these workforce reductions alone isn't clearly documented.

Are there any legal challenges to the firing of government workers in departments that deal with foreign aid?

There have been legal challenges related to the firing of government workers in foreign aid departments. For instance, a recent court ruling issued a preliminary injunction against the suspension and termination of certain foreign aid contracts. This decision emphasized that the government must adhere to Congress's constitutional spending authority and process payments for completed work. However, the ruling did not fully block broader workforce reductions or terminations.

What are the 10 countries that have lost the most foreign aid?

The countries most affected by U.S. foreign aid cuts under the Trump administration include nations that heavily relied on USAID funding. Some of the hardest-hit countries are:

  1. Afghanistan
  2. Yemen
  3. South Sudan
  4. Syria
  5. Somalia
  6. Haiti
  7. Ethiopia
  8. Sudan
  9. Democratic Republic of the Congo
  10. The West Bank and Gaza Strip

These reductions have had significant impacts on humanitarian aid, development projects, and stability in these regions.

All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.


Read More

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less