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

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

Your Vote Counts postid

Latino Voter Landscape Shifts as Economic Pressures Reshape Support for Both Parties

New polling and expert analysis reveal a shifting and increasingly complex political landscape among Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States. While recent surveys show that economic pressures continue to dominate voter concerns, they also highlight a broader fragmentation of political identity that is reshaping long‑standing assumptions about Latino electoral behavior. A Pew Research Center poll indicates that President Donald Trump has lost support among Hispanic voters, with 70% disapproving of his performance, even though 42% of Latinos voted for him in 2024, a ten‑point increase from 2020. Among those who supported him, approval remains relatively high at 81%, though this marks a decline from earlier polling.

At the same time, Democrats are confronting their own challenges. Data comparing the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll with the 2020 American Election Eve Poll show that Democratic margins dropped by 23 points among Latino men, raising concerns among party strategists about weakening support heading into the 2026 midterms. Analysts argue that despite these declines, sustained investment in Latino voter engagement remains essential, particularly as turnout efforts have historically influenced electoral outcomes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Leif Christoph Gottwald on Unsplash

Compassion and Common Sense Must Coexist in Immigration Policy

I am writing this not as a Democrat or a Republican, but as an American who believes that compassion and common sense must coexist. I understand why many people feel sympathy for those who come to the United States seeking safety or opportunity. That compassion is part of who we are as a nation. But compassion alone cannot guide national policy, especially when the consequences affect every citizen, every community, and every generation that follows.

For more than two centuries, people from around the world have entered this country through a legal process—sometimes long, sometimes difficult, but always rooted in the idea that a nation has the right and responsibility to know who is entering its borders. That principle is not new, and it is not partisan. It is simply how a functioning country protects its people and maintains order.

Keep ReadingShow less
SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure
scotus rulings voting rights, disclosure

SCOTUS Tariffs Case: Representative Government vs Authoritarianism.

The Supreme Court Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs) and consolidated related cases relate to the following issues:

(1) Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump; and

Keep ReadingShow less
Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Immigration Was the Loudest Silence in Trump’s State of the Union

President Donald Trump spoke for 108 minutes during the 2026 State of the Union — the longest address in American history. He covered the economy, foreign policy, manufacturing, and national pride. But for all the words, one of the most consequential issues facing the country was reduced to a single statistic and then set aside.

Immigration — one of the administration’s signature issues — was nearly invisible in the address. A Medill News Service analysis shows the president devoted less than 10% of his remarks to the topic, amounting to roughly ten minutes in total.

Keep ReadingShow less