February 16, 2025 - 8:00pm
There is currently significant disquiet in the American military and intelligence communities over the Trump administration’s dramatic suspension of nearly all US aid programmes globally. As the Washington Post notes today, this suspension has also affected US counter-terrorism programmes which help African governments detect, investigate and confront extremist threats. Much of this aid is focused on addressing threats posed by groups such as al-Shabaab that have international aspirations.
The President and those around him have an ideological aversion to most foreign aid programmes, and see their elimination as an easy victory to boost the narrative of the administration acting decisively to shrink government spending. Yet, while some concerns about the impact on counter-terrorism are legitimate, the White House is in fact highly likely to restore funding to programmes which service US interests, following reviews.
Note, for example, Trump’s publication on social media earlier this month of a video showing a US air strike targeting al-Shabaab terrorists in northern Somalia. The President celebrated that strike as sending “the message to ISIS and all others who would attack Americans ‘WE WILL FIND YOU, AND WE WILL KILL YOU'”. Trump evidently regards aggressive action against terrorists as a measure of presidential leadership, and does not want his reputation to be damaged in the way Joe Biden’s was after the August 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Trump’s desire for a more aggressive stance towards non-state threats is further underlined by his approach towards the Mexican drug cartels. US Air Force intelligence collection aircraft are now increasingly active near the border and, having listed various cartels as foreign terrorist organisations, Trump has also strongly hinted at a CIA covert action campaign to launch attacks on the cartels without Mexican government approval.
The President’s foreign policy instinct is to avoid military entanglements abroad, a key reason why he has insisted on European militaries taking the lead on any post-war peacekeeping force in Ukraine. Still, the Trump administration recognises the threat that groups such as Isis, al-Qaeda, and al-Shabaab pose to America. Crucially, officials also realise that being seen as weak on counter-terrorism issues, especially if a subsequent attack on US interests occurs, is politically toxic. Relatively small investments in support of international counter-terrorism schemes therefore represent good value in security, financial, and domestic political terms. This stands in contrast to spending on LGBTQ+ and DEI initiatives, which have become a target for Republican ire since November’s election.
Various officials within the administration who are responsible for counter-terrorism — such as CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth — will also recognise the second- and third-order value of counter-terrorism investments in places such as Kenya, Somalia, and the Philippines. These funds empower host nation security and intelligence agencies in ways that then foster appreciation towards the US, not to mention a willingness to undertake risky operations at their own expense. As a result, American success is more assured when Trump lobbies governments on other matters, such as requesting they reject a proposed deal with China.
Trump knows that skimping on international counter-terrorism investments will save little money while producing outsize security and strategic costs. It may be easy for him to scrap DEI grants to Ireland, but it’s far harder to make cuts that might one day be highlighted by Democrats as having led to deadly attacks.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeImagine if USAID was funding radical right-wing movements in Europe and the rest of the world?
Maybe Trump and DOGE should rethink their plans and make it happen. It would certainly be an improvement.
By scrapping the lot the administration can reintroduce only those schemes that are worthwhile. It’s much easier than fighting the inevitable procrastinations if they start discussing what to cut.
Listen to Mike Benz on Joe Rogan to understand what USAID has been doing – over 3 hours of very detailed information
Too much truth for so many.
The Mike Benz conversation was eye watering.
This is wishful thinking! “As a result, American success is more assured when Trump lobbies governments on other matters, such as requesting they reject a proposed deal with China.”
No one trust US anymore. The truth is US is broke because they were buying power of supporting both sides of conflict but that is coming to end. The embarrassment is near when camp David payments are cancelled!
The whole point of the audit is to identify what should be kept and what should be ditched. I suspect much of the annual budget falls into the latter category but Trump won’t know until Musk has been through the files.