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:
- Afghanistan
- Yemen
- South Sudan
- Syria
- Somalia
- Haiti
- Ethiopia
- Sudan
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
- 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.
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.