To highlight what is happening to US Foreign Aid?

It is also not going to be in the interest of the US or the UK when China and Russia step in to fill the void. Which presumably is one of the reasons those countries have long wanted to use disinformation to turn the population of the west against this kind of aid...

I think we need to look at this holistically, I don’t know which country you’re from, I’m going to assume either UK/US but please feel free to correct me if you meant a different country by “we”.

Firstly - Uk and US and other allies are still bombing some of these countries, so when people say “oh why should we be helping” well honestly - if countries don’t want to pay foreign aid to support programs or infrastructure then they should stop bombing these countries and destroying the infrastructure to begin with.

Secondly a lot of these programs actually go towards keeping people in their countries of origin - you mentioned return of asylum seekers and I won’t go into that as a concept but from this I’m guessing immigration and asylum are a concern of yours which is fair. Foreign aid supports countries with essential services to help keep people there so it’s actually in the interest of people who have immigration concerns to support funding that helps people stay in their countries of origin.

Overall I don’t necessarily see (as I live in these countries to run these types of programs) these countries as developing past most “western” countries in the near future - while some developed countries do receive funding for example European countries receive funding for some programs, most go to developing countries and realistically it’s to support basic services where there aren’t fully functioning hospitals, schools, employment opportunities.

First of all, these 'white house sources' have, I think we can agree, a vested interest in spinning what they're doing, and have not been shy about using disinformation.

And hundreds of millions of dollars to provide better irrigation systems for Afghan poppy-growing projects

Right, and here, the context, which they fail to provide, is that the money was, in fact, for better irrigation in order to convert the crop. The Spectator really has become a sad shadow of its former self. Being partisan is one thing, and fair enough, but they should be ashamed because this is just shoddy.

Be aware of fake news spreading X

Here is one

https://bsky.app/profile/shayan86.bsky.social/post/3lhhrgn6tn225

Elon Musk has shared this fake E! News video on X, which claims USAID has paid millions to Hollywood celebrities to visit Ukraine.

The clip, now community noted, is the work of a well-known Russian disinformation campaign that creates fake videos of news outlets to push anti-Ukrainian narratives.

I was going to link this article too. Nick Kristoff is excellent as always in explaining why this matters. Global health issues are a massive risk.

Fix the system for sure but this kind of total shutdown of projects is awful.

Same here. We're expecting a sector-wide collapse. There will be masses of local organisations that will have to close completely. They've already been firing people and closing projects left right and centre since the announcement. It's terrifying what it will do to the vulnerable people they work with.

And then there will be the knock on effect as it's not just USAID funding as such, but the US is also a back donor for the likes of UN agencies etc.

It's not just irresponsible what they are doing. It's inhumane.

@snugsnug1

Here is a couple of paragraphs from the article:
^^
This week, various White House spokesmen had fun pointing out some recent projects which might not have been the best use of US taxpayer dollars: $1.5 million to ‘advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’; $47,000 to fund a ‘transgender opera’ in Colombia; $2 million for sex changes in Guatemala. And hundreds of millions of dollars to provide better irrigation systems for Afghan poppy-growing projects as well as hundreds of thousands of meals for al Qaeda-related terrorists in Syria. It is one thing to actually feed your enemies, or fund their illegal drugs trade, but it might be even worse to go around the world paying people to display the worst woke excesses which took over America and most of the rest of the West in the past decade.
It reminds me of that classic from some years ago, when American ‘educators’ were paid to introduce Afghan women to conceptual art, including Marcel Duchamp’s famous urinal. The Afghan women in the class (caught on video) giggled as this poor western chump tried to get them up to speed on the 20th century. You could see on their faces what they were thinking: if this is the crap the West is going to push on us, maybe our husbands were right about the western infidel after all. It was, as many a wag said at the time, literally money down the toilet.

For me as someone in the sector and directly affected it’s also about the logistics and processes and the complete disregard of those.

For example, if any large donor were to say “Look we’re realigning our priorities, all proposals and previous submissions that are yet to be approved are on hold while we review” - it’s still rubbish for us…. But sure I see it from the donor country perspective.

But to unilaterally cut everything with no warning and no exit strategy is just insane. Not even thinking about the human element, just logistically speaking, like based upon the contract signed we then have sub contracts for procurements, car rental, office rental, internet subscriptions etc which all require a minimum notice period and will incur costs while those contracts are ended.

Then you have the programming itself, do a review first and say “Hey look we’re suspending things that aren’t life saving so this theatre project needs to wait until the review” would be a more strategic way forward than freezing everything, then everything has a mad panic, and a few days later a waiver is issued to cover life saving activities is just completely the wrong way round and not a productive process at all.

Yes, it's most definitely in all our interest to cut funding to the aid organisations that try to contain Ebola, AIDS, monkeypox, etc. etc. We will definitely not be creating any problems by allowing communicable disease to run rampant and mutate. How could that possibly be seen as short-sighted?

In terms of HUMAN IMPACT that is what is happening on the ground. You are naive to think that this approach is anything other than evil.

I am not disagreeing with your right to argue against aid/development (although I think it is incredibly short-sighted not to see that we in the 'west' benefit from health and stability elsewhere). But you do not go about it by setting a bomb off.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/opinion/usaid-spending-trump-musk.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

You really shouldn’t be voting if that’s what you think it means.

Have you seen the list of USAID projects. It’s absolutely criminal. What happens in the US generally follows here and I say thank god for that. The government has no business giving away a penny of our money. All foreign aid must end and asylum seekers need to be returned to their country of origin. It is the only way this madness will end. Why should we as a nation get poorer so another country can develop past us.

Don’t be ridiculous

No, the equivalent would be Farage scrapping our foreign aid budget - we have one too, you know!

Can you put up the sourcing the Spectator used for that?

I believe there was large investment at one point in infrastructure to move Afghan farming away from opium poppies towards sustainable alternatives.

Editing to add: there has been a very long, not very successful struggle to move Afghanistan away from poppy production, as obviously it's the source of the majority of heroin production in the world, so I believe the Spectator has possibly slanted this story.

It would be the equivalent of Farage coming in and saying "Let's cut foreign aid"

The equivalent here would be Farage getting in and saying, "Right, the benefits bill and the NHS supporting spongers is absurd, let's sort this out by cutting off ALL benefits, UC, tax credits and NHS support today - and then consider what we might put in place"....

Does that sound like a good idea?

@Locutus2000

"Regardless of your position on Foreign Aid, this type of scorched-earth petty bullying of dissidents has to be intolerable?"

No. The reason these organisations are so weighted in one direction is because they themselves have viciously and sadistically attacked their own political opponents. This was denied, minimised and then called 'accountability'. Now the tables have turned you don't like it. Let me get out my tiny tiny violin.

Trump was elected as an American exceptionalist so it's not really surprising that he is cutting foreign aid.

Lots of people don't care about people in other countries, so not surprising to see lots of cheerleaders here. The cuts that worry me most are those to programmes focused on HIV or malaria prevention. Malaria was present in a lot of Southern Europe as late as the 1950s/60s, programmes to eradicate it removed it and prevented it from returning. I also worry about the WHO's efforts to contain an Ebola outbreak in DRC.

If these efforts fail, people might quickly learn that waving a UK or USA passport at viruses and bacteria doesn't actually work.

There’s an article in the Spectator this week about the recipients of foreign aid from US and Britain. Apparently America sent ‘hundreds of millions of dollars to provide better irrigation systems for Afghan poppy-growing projects’.

It sounds shocking but I wonder if the plan had been to grow opium for medicine.

Agree @snugsnug1 - global health projects are exactly that, global. Investment in pre wanting infectious diseases or pandemic preparedness are the first line of defence for the 'west'. But to mention the likely waves of immigration as health systems etc collapse and violence increases.

A dumbed down electorate, ingesting bite sized nuggets of disinformation is never going to understand the deeper principles and reach of this kind of aid, unfortunately.

They don't even seem to understand the direct link between cutting it and how it will contribute to quickly mutating global pandemics.

I agree. Biden was clearly past his best in his presidency and some took advantage of his lack of supervision. It can't take 10,000 people to administer the FA.

Grant funding for community theatres in the UK doesn't just support aspiring thespians and playwrites or subsidise ticket prices for luvvies. It funds apprenticeships for electricians, carpenters, painters and so on, so that they go on to skilled trades and create wealth.

@Midnightlove

That's simplistic. Soft power. HUGE impact for a relatively low outlay. Combatting Chinese influence in a global battle for security and power. This directly negatively affects Americans, and the rest of us,