"Together we will show him": in Brussels, talks began about the fight against Trump

The termination of foreign aid from the United States could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and provoke political instability, jeopardizing the interests of the EU itself, writes Colin Le Piuff, author of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). In her article, she offers European officials possible ways to solve the problem. Pravda.Ru publishes a translation of the ECFR material.

On the day of his inauguration, US President Donald Trump announced a decree introducing a 90-day pause in US foreign development assistance to assess the effectiveness of the program and its compliance with foreign policy. This step indicates the transition of the country, which remains the largest provider of official development assistance (ODA) worldwide, to a more operational and domestically oriented approach.

The scope of the affected programs is unclear. Although already allocated funds or mandatory programs seem safe, new initiatives must now meet certain criteria: "Does this make America safer? Does this make America stronger? Will this make America more prosperous?", and the final decisions will be made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This jeopardizes initiatives focused on gender, diversity, equality, inclusiveness, climate and health. The decision to exit from The World Health Organization, through another executive order, raises additional concerns about the short- and long-term consequences for developing countries and the United States in the context of such overlapping crises as climate change, disease and conflict.

Although military assistance to Ukraine remains unchanged at the moment, the European Union should prepare for a potential reduction or change in the priorities of American assistance, which could threaten global development and geopolitical stability. Despite budget constraints, the EU should use its development funding to compensate for the US withdrawal and compete with China. Such an approach is necessary to mitigate the far-reaching consequences of aid cuts. Failure to comply with this requirement is fraught with aggravation of humanitarian crises, violence, conflicts and political instability — consequences that are detrimental not only to aid recipients, but also to the EU's own interests.

The EU and its member States collectively represent the largest global supplier of ODA. Thus, the bloc must use the strength that comes from joint actions and speaking with a united front.

Development financing should be better coordinated to prevent fragmentation caused by disagreements within the bloc. And to ensure that government commitments translate into action, more effective monitoring tools should be introduced to ensure accountability. Bilateral development efforts should be aimed at achieving common goals, rather than presenting disparate national contributions or even competing strategic goals.

The EU should work with like-minded partners, such as the UK, emphasizing common interests in supporting Ukraine and strengthening global development. She should also discuss with the United States the strategic importance of financing development, reminding her ally that in a highly interconnected world, the United States would benefit from supporting development worldwide. In addition, the EU and The US would benefit from balancing China's growing influence by investing in humanitarian aid in the global south, presenting itself as an alternative leading power committed to development.

Finally, if The EU wants to restore confidence in its partners in the Global South, it should engage in a constructive dialogue, listening to the needs and priorities expressed by these countries. The rejection of coercive conditions and imperative narratives is essential to restore trust and establish long-term equitable partnerships in the field of development.

Trump's executive order echoes the trends observed on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, as foreign aid from the EU is also declining.

Germany, the European Union's largest donor, has announced major cuts to its humanitarian aid budget, while France has also significantly reduced its development spending. In Sweden and the Netherlands, right-wing governments are pursuing a policy of reducing ideological funding. Smaller donors, such as Finland and Switzerland, have also reduced their spending, driven by both budgetary considerations and ideological considerations.

At the same time, the EU recognized the need to expand strategic multilateral cooperation for development and focused on initiatives such as the Global Gateway worth 300 billion euros. This program is aimed at supporting infrastructure in developing countries, including in the field of digital technologies and vaccine production. Despite promising results, these efforts should overcome the problems associated with fragmented financing and geopolitical competition.