Assessing Trump's First 50 Days
U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2025, and on March 11 is starting the 51st day of his second term. The Forum on the Arms Trade invited members of its community, including listed experts and their colleagues, to examine aspects of the Trump administration's first 50 days. Fifteen experts authored a dozen commentaries, writing from the United States as well as Colombia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom.
Each commentary is individually authored and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the expert's organization. Inclusion here does not imply agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The Forum itself does not take positions.
These commentaries were published on March 11, 2025.
Each commentary is individually authored and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the expert's organization. Inclusion here does not imply agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The Forum itself does not take positions.
These commentaries were published on March 11, 2025.
Expert commentaries touch on a range of issues, many extending beyond the arms trade itself. They may be roughly categorized as follows:
Undermining Accountability:
Undermining Accountability:
- Jeff Abramson, Undoing Support for International Human Rights and Democracy
- William D. Hartung and Ashley Gate, Open Season for Bribery?
- Sara Elizabeth Dill, Waging War on the International Criminal Court Through Sanction
- Sarah Leah Whitson, Dramatic and Dangerous
- Sheridan Cole and Haydn Welch, U.S. Security Assistance to Egypt - First Came the Waiver, Then Came the Threat
- John Lindsay-Poland, Mexico is Moving Target for Trump Shooting Spree
- Frank Slijper, Europe Responding with Greater Militarization
- Samuel Perlo-Freeman, Forcing the UK to Rethink
- Henrique Garbino, U.S. Funding Cuts to Humanitarian Demining
- Camilo Serna, Politics of Contradiction
- Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, Chaos Я US
- Anonymously by two community colleagues, Cancellation of U.S. international cooperation contracts threaten the lives and livelihoods of thousands of war victims and their families around the world
Undoing Support for International Human Rights and Democracy
Jeff Abramson, Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy
With an extreme America first approach that includes threatening allies and neighbors, extractive relations, and rejection of many international agreements and bodies, it’s unclear whether President Trump desires to create a new shared global order, or simply break what now exists. What is more clear is that one should not expect the United States to support international humanitarian and human rights law, or promotion of democracy, under his leadership. That conclusion emerges vividly given the Trump administration’s actions in its first 50 days as relates to arms transfers, security assistance, and weapons use.
The suspension of military aid to Ukraine and desire for access to its mineral resources is perhaps the most high profile devaluing of democracy. But the same extractive approach underlies threatening tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and the European Union. In short, if Trump doesn’t believe the United States is getting enough in return, it matters not if your country is a long-time democratic ally.
As relates to Israel, the previous administration did very little to reign in use of American weapons to commit rights abuses, but Trump has undone even that little restraint. One of the administration’s first actions was a 90-day suspension on foreign aid, but with an exemption for military assistance to the country. It also quickly removed sanctions on Israelis undermining peace in the West Bank and abandoned the Biden administration’s hold on the provision of 2000-pound bombs to Israel, recently using an emergency declaration to speed sales without the standard Congressional review. Perhaps more telling, his proposed plan to empty and redevelop Gaza shows a disdain for international law.
Whereas Trump’s actions related to Ukraine and Israel have garnered high media attention, less publicized steps also make clear that the country that now accounts for 44% of the global trade in major weapons cares little about how its arms might be used in human rights abuses or harming civilians. Last month, his administration rescinded NSM-20, a modest measure that required countries to certify that they were using U.S. weapons properly. More recently, media reported the administration was cutting positions for those charged with mitigating civilian harm.
It's difficult to see a silver lining in this chaos, especially as one country officially left a humanitarian disarmament treaty last week and others may be in line to do so soon. In the absence (or perhaps in opposition to) U.S. leadership, other countries and champions will need to step up. There are some signs of that happening. Leaders of the recently formed Hague Group penned an op-ed promoting accountability and actions related to arms transfers to Israel. Last month, for I believe only the second time in the nearly 11 year history of the Arms Trade Treaty, states parties held a formal discussion on harmful transfers; while non-governmental organizations across countries called for action on F-35s.
Jeff Abramson, Senior Non-Resident Fellow, Center for International Policy
With an extreme America first approach that includes threatening allies and neighbors, extractive relations, and rejection of many international agreements and bodies, it’s unclear whether President Trump desires to create a new shared global order, or simply break what now exists. What is more clear is that one should not expect the United States to support international humanitarian and human rights law, or promotion of democracy, under his leadership. That conclusion emerges vividly given the Trump administration’s actions in its first 50 days as relates to arms transfers, security assistance, and weapons use.
The suspension of military aid to Ukraine and desire for access to its mineral resources is perhaps the most high profile devaluing of democracy. But the same extractive approach underlies threatening tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and the European Union. In short, if Trump doesn’t believe the United States is getting enough in return, it matters not if your country is a long-time democratic ally.
As relates to Israel, the previous administration did very little to reign in use of American weapons to commit rights abuses, but Trump has undone even that little restraint. One of the administration’s first actions was a 90-day suspension on foreign aid, but with an exemption for military assistance to the country. It also quickly removed sanctions on Israelis undermining peace in the West Bank and abandoned the Biden administration’s hold on the provision of 2000-pound bombs to Israel, recently using an emergency declaration to speed sales without the standard Congressional review. Perhaps more telling, his proposed plan to empty and redevelop Gaza shows a disdain for international law.
Whereas Trump’s actions related to Ukraine and Israel have garnered high media attention, less publicized steps also make clear that the country that now accounts for 44% of the global trade in major weapons cares little about how its arms might be used in human rights abuses or harming civilians. Last month, his administration rescinded NSM-20, a modest measure that required countries to certify that they were using U.S. weapons properly. More recently, media reported the administration was cutting positions for those charged with mitigating civilian harm.
It's difficult to see a silver lining in this chaos, especially as one country officially left a humanitarian disarmament treaty last week and others may be in line to do so soon. In the absence (or perhaps in opposition to) U.S. leadership, other countries and champions will need to step up. There are some signs of that happening. Leaders of the recently formed Hague Group penned an op-ed promoting accountability and actions related to arms transfers to Israel. Last month, for I believe only the second time in the nearly 11 year history of the Arms Trade Treaty, states parties held a formal discussion on harmful transfers; while non-governmental organizations across countries called for action on F-35s.
Open Season for Bribery?
William D. Hartung and Ashley Gate, Senior Research Fellow and Research Intern, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
On February 10 of this year, President Trump issued an executive order that directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pause the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA was the first law in modern history to ban a country’s own citizens and companies from bribing foreign officials.
President Trump’s stated reason for freezing enforcement of the anti-bribery law is that he believes it has been used unfairly, to the detriment of U.S. companies and U.S. security. But there is no evidence that outlawing bribery has hurt the U.S. arms industry. The United States has been the world’s largest arms supplier by a large margin for 25 of the past 26 years, and major U.S. arms offers reached near record levels of $145 billion last year.
In addition to suspending enforcement of the foreign bribery act, the Department of the Treasury has announced that it will no longer enforce the Corporate Transparency Act, the 2021 act that the required disclosure of the true owners of shell companies – a law that made it easier to root out money laundering and the financing of illegal activities, including arms trafficking.
The debate over bribery may be obscuring a larger truth: U.S. arms sales policy is in desperate need of an overhaul. The real issue is how to stop dangerous, counterproductive arms transfers, not how to make it easier to cash in on sales that too often undermine U.S. interests. Instead of lifting restrictions on bribery and reducing corporate transparency to grease the wheels for additional foreign arms sales by U.S. weapons makers, Congress and the Trump administration should be crafting a policy designed to make sure overseas arms sales are governed by U.S. national interests, not special interests that profit from selling ever more weaponry to any and all customers.
William D. Hartung and Ashley Gate, Senior Research Fellow and Research Intern, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
On February 10 of this year, President Trump issued an executive order that directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to pause the enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FCPA was the first law in modern history to ban a country’s own citizens and companies from bribing foreign officials.
President Trump’s stated reason for freezing enforcement of the anti-bribery law is that he believes it has been used unfairly, to the detriment of U.S. companies and U.S. security. But there is no evidence that outlawing bribery has hurt the U.S. arms industry. The United States has been the world’s largest arms supplier by a large margin for 25 of the past 26 years, and major U.S. arms offers reached near record levels of $145 billion last year.
In addition to suspending enforcement of the foreign bribery act, the Department of the Treasury has announced that it will no longer enforce the Corporate Transparency Act, the 2021 act that the required disclosure of the true owners of shell companies – a law that made it easier to root out money laundering and the financing of illegal activities, including arms trafficking.
The debate over bribery may be obscuring a larger truth: U.S. arms sales policy is in desperate need of an overhaul. The real issue is how to stop dangerous, counterproductive arms transfers, not how to make it easier to cash in on sales that too often undermine U.S. interests. Instead of lifting restrictions on bribery and reducing corporate transparency to grease the wheels for additional foreign arms sales by U.S. weapons makers, Congress and the Trump administration should be crafting a policy designed to make sure overseas arms sales are governed by U.S. national interests, not special interests that profit from selling ever more weaponry to any and all customers.
Waging War on the International Criminal Court Through Sanctions
Sara Elizabeth Dill, Partner, Anethum Global
Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration issued an executive order (E.O.) that imposed sanctions, including visa restrictions and asset freezes, on the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). Trump declared a national emergency, calling the ICC and its investigations into U.S. allies who had not accepted jurisdiction of the Court “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” In his first term, Trump imposed sanctions on the ICC Prosecutor in response to war crimes investigations of the U.S. military as to Afghanistan and the pending situation in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Following pressure from the international community, President Biden removed those sanctions. Unfortunately, the new executive order goes far beyond the previous sanctions in its reach and repercussions on international criminal justice and the rule of law. The U.S. has a complex relationship with the ICC, one which grew criticism given the hypocrisy between its support for the Court as to the arrest warrants for Russian president Putin, and then a reversal when the ICC sought arrest warrants for high-ranking Israeli officials over war crimes in Gaza.
As of the date of writing, only one person has been explicitly named in the E.O.’s Annex, current ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. However, the overwhelming concern about the new E.O. is subsection (ii) – which is extremely broad and purports to sanction any foreign person who has directly engaged in or provided financial, material, or technological support or assistance to any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person’s country of nationality. In addition to the sanctions, anyone aiding and abetting or directly evading the sanctions – including U.S. citizens – is at risk of federal criminal prosecution that can result in extremely high fines and a maximum of twenty years in prison.
Given the extra-territorial reach of the U.S. authority to bring criminal prosecutions for sanctions violations and the transnational banking systems tied to the U.S. dollar, this E.O. has the potential to impact thousands of individuals and entities engaged in the investigation, documentation, and pursuit of justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity – many of which are committed with internationally traded weapons. In recent years, documenting arms flows has proved useful in accountability efforts, including an increase in private sector and corporate liability for aiding and abetting war crimes, or efforts to urge nations to halt arms transfers due to violations of international humanitarian law.
The ICC certainly is poised to experience the most significant repercussions as banks holding accounts for the ICC or any of its employees (judges, prosecutors, investigators, interpreters, administrative and security staff) may be restricted from processing any transactions. The order can also potentially be applied to victims cooperating with prosecutors and investigations. More broadly, human rights lawyers, journalists, investigators, NGOs or civil society organisations, or any person or entity assisting in providing information, legal advice, or other support is at risk.
In the immediate aftermath of the E.O., overwhelming objections by countries were put forth, as well as a statement from UN experts condemning the sanctions. Efforts are underway to mitigate the impacts, including the push for the European Union to adopt and/or implement national and regional blocking statutes, aiming to shield European operators from the effects of extraterritorial sanctions and send a powerful message that ICC member countries will not tolerate efforts to undermine the Court. Litigation is expected to challenge the constitutionality of the executive order in U.S. courts.
The ICC could bring criminal charges for unlawful interference with criminal investigations and prosecutions under Article 70 of the Rome Statute. Paramount, however, is for countries to ensure those within their borders are protected and that diplomatic efforts halt these unlawful attacks on the rule of law as Trump attempts to shield the world’s worst human rights violators from accountability and enable arms manufacturers and traders to profit from supplying the weapons necessary to commit war crimes without fear of liability.
Sara Elizabeth Dill, Partner, Anethum Global
Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration issued an executive order (E.O.) that imposed sanctions, including visa restrictions and asset freezes, on the International Criminal Court (“ICC”). Trump declared a national emergency, calling the ICC and its investigations into U.S. allies who had not accepted jurisdiction of the Court “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” In his first term, Trump imposed sanctions on the ICC Prosecutor in response to war crimes investigations of the U.S. military as to Afghanistan and the pending situation in Occupied Palestinian Territory. Following pressure from the international community, President Biden removed those sanctions. Unfortunately, the new executive order goes far beyond the previous sanctions in its reach and repercussions on international criminal justice and the rule of law. The U.S. has a complex relationship with the ICC, one which grew criticism given the hypocrisy between its support for the Court as to the arrest warrants for Russian president Putin, and then a reversal when the ICC sought arrest warrants for high-ranking Israeli officials over war crimes in Gaza.
As of the date of writing, only one person has been explicitly named in the E.O.’s Annex, current ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan. However, the overwhelming concern about the new E.O. is subsection (ii) – which is extremely broad and purports to sanction any foreign person who has directly engaged in or provided financial, material, or technological support or assistance to any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute a protected person without consent of that person’s country of nationality. In addition to the sanctions, anyone aiding and abetting or directly evading the sanctions – including U.S. citizens – is at risk of federal criminal prosecution that can result in extremely high fines and a maximum of twenty years in prison.
Given the extra-territorial reach of the U.S. authority to bring criminal prosecutions for sanctions violations and the transnational banking systems tied to the U.S. dollar, this E.O. has the potential to impact thousands of individuals and entities engaged in the investigation, documentation, and pursuit of justice for war crimes and crimes against humanity – many of which are committed with internationally traded weapons. In recent years, documenting arms flows has proved useful in accountability efforts, including an increase in private sector and corporate liability for aiding and abetting war crimes, or efforts to urge nations to halt arms transfers due to violations of international humanitarian law.
The ICC certainly is poised to experience the most significant repercussions as banks holding accounts for the ICC or any of its employees (judges, prosecutors, investigators, interpreters, administrative and security staff) may be restricted from processing any transactions. The order can also potentially be applied to victims cooperating with prosecutors and investigations. More broadly, human rights lawyers, journalists, investigators, NGOs or civil society organisations, or any person or entity assisting in providing information, legal advice, or other support is at risk.
In the immediate aftermath of the E.O., overwhelming objections by countries were put forth, as well as a statement from UN experts condemning the sanctions. Efforts are underway to mitigate the impacts, including the push for the European Union to adopt and/or implement national and regional blocking statutes, aiming to shield European operators from the effects of extraterritorial sanctions and send a powerful message that ICC member countries will not tolerate efforts to undermine the Court. Litigation is expected to challenge the constitutionality of the executive order in U.S. courts.
The ICC could bring criminal charges for unlawful interference with criminal investigations and prosecutions under Article 70 of the Rome Statute. Paramount, however, is for countries to ensure those within their borders are protected and that diplomatic efforts halt these unlawful attacks on the rule of law as Trump attempts to shield the world’s worst human rights violators from accountability and enable arms manufacturers and traders to profit from supplying the weapons necessary to commit war crimes without fear of liability.
Dramatic and Dangerous
Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, DAWN
The tsunami of the Trump administration’s new foreign policy has been much more dramatic and rapid than anyone anticipated. The globe appears dumbfounded by Trump’s decisions to abandon support for Ukraine in its war to fight Russia’s invasion; to declare that he will invade Greenland, the Panama Canal, Gaza, and even Canada if certain demands are not met; and to cut almost all foreign military and economic assistance, partly by dismantling the Agency for International Development.
Trump’s purported rationale for cutting foreign aid – to eliminate the waste of taxpayer money with nothing in return and avoid needless and costly entanglements in foreign wars – is rife with inconsistency and therefore lacks credibility. Trump deliberately excluded Israel’s annual military aid of $3.3 billion, as well as the related $1.3 billion to Egypt and $1.72 billion to Jordan as rewards for their peace agreements with Israel; he even snuck in an additional $10 billion in new arms sales to Israel, some of it without the required notification to Congress.
Trump’s threat to “take over” Gaza may well be a bluff to pressure Arab states to accede to Israeli demands. But it has already succeeded in encouraging Israeli belligerence in the West Bank and renewed starvation policies in Gaza, and is certain to expand the conflict and further drag U.S. forces into supporting Israel’s endless wars. Despite the bluster of a mercenary, transactional foreign policy that puts America first, Trump appears as submissive and beholden to his pro-Israel donors as every president before him.
Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director, DAWN
The tsunami of the Trump administration’s new foreign policy has been much more dramatic and rapid than anyone anticipated. The globe appears dumbfounded by Trump’s decisions to abandon support for Ukraine in its war to fight Russia’s invasion; to declare that he will invade Greenland, the Panama Canal, Gaza, and even Canada if certain demands are not met; and to cut almost all foreign military and economic assistance, partly by dismantling the Agency for International Development.
Trump’s purported rationale for cutting foreign aid – to eliminate the waste of taxpayer money with nothing in return and avoid needless and costly entanglements in foreign wars – is rife with inconsistency and therefore lacks credibility. Trump deliberately excluded Israel’s annual military aid of $3.3 billion, as well as the related $1.3 billion to Egypt and $1.72 billion to Jordan as rewards for their peace agreements with Israel; he even snuck in an additional $10 billion in new arms sales to Israel, some of it without the required notification to Congress.
Trump’s threat to “take over” Gaza may well be a bluff to pressure Arab states to accede to Israeli demands. But it has already succeeded in encouraging Israeli belligerence in the West Bank and renewed starvation policies in Gaza, and is certain to expand the conflict and further drag U.S. forces into supporting Israel’s endless wars. Despite the bluster of a mercenary, transactional foreign policy that puts America first, Trump appears as submissive and beholden to his pro-Israel donors as every president before him.
U.S. Security Assistance to Egypt - First Came the Waiver, Then Came the Threat
Sheridan Cole and Haydn Welch, Advocacy Officers, Middle East Democracy Center
On the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term, his administration issued a sweeping and devastating executive order pausing all U.S. foreign assistance for 90 days. Despite the pressing need for U.S. assistance across the world, the administration initially issued only three waivers: one of them for military assistance to Egypt. It is telling that even with Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s ostensible concerns about widespread government waste, the $1.3 billion in annual U.S. security assistance to Egypt was deemed untouchable. The immediate waiver for Egypt signaled a continuation of the decades-long support for the Egyptian military, even though human rights groups have consistently raised concerns about waste, the dubious national security benefits of the funds, and the rampant rights abuses committed by Egyptian security forces.
Then, on February 10, Trump floated the possibility that he “would conceivably withhold aid” to Egypt due to the country’s refusal to take in Palestinian refugees as part of his plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza, which would necessarily involve forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Congress has conditioned security assistance to Egypt on human rights concerns since FY2012, but withholding aid to Egypt because it refused to be a willing participant in ethnic cleansing would be a shocking and appalling move in clear violation of international law. If Trump truly wanted to pursue a foreign policy that furthered U.S. interests, instead of using security assistance as a rhetorical cudgel to promote ethnic cleansing, he would direct his administration to carefully assess how $1.3 billion in security assistance to Egypt benefits Americans. In parallel, Trump should adopt a foreign policy that increases funding for good governance, human rights, and the Egyptian people’s economic needs — all of which would help support long-term stability in the country.
Sheridan Cole and Haydn Welch, Advocacy Officers, Middle East Democracy Center
On the first day of President Donald Trump’s second term, his administration issued a sweeping and devastating executive order pausing all U.S. foreign assistance for 90 days. Despite the pressing need for U.S. assistance across the world, the administration initially issued only three waivers: one of them for military assistance to Egypt. It is telling that even with Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s ostensible concerns about widespread government waste, the $1.3 billion in annual U.S. security assistance to Egypt was deemed untouchable. The immediate waiver for Egypt signaled a continuation of the decades-long support for the Egyptian military, even though human rights groups have consistently raised concerns about waste, the dubious national security benefits of the funds, and the rampant rights abuses committed by Egyptian security forces.
Then, on February 10, Trump floated the possibility that he “would conceivably withhold aid” to Egypt due to the country’s refusal to take in Palestinian refugees as part of his plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza, which would necessarily involve forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Congress has conditioned security assistance to Egypt on human rights concerns since FY2012, but withholding aid to Egypt because it refused to be a willing participant in ethnic cleansing would be a shocking and appalling move in clear violation of international law. If Trump truly wanted to pursue a foreign policy that furthered U.S. interests, instead of using security assistance as a rhetorical cudgel to promote ethnic cleansing, he would direct his administration to carefully assess how $1.3 billion in security assistance to Egypt benefits Americans. In parallel, Trump should adopt a foreign policy that increases funding for good governance, human rights, and the Egyptian people’s economic needs — all of which would help support long-term stability in the country.
Mexico is Moving Target for Trump’s Shooting Spree
John Lindsay-Poland, Coordinator, Stop US Arms to Mexico
The Trump administration is intent on breaking things – presumably to re-make some of them to benefit the president and his cronies, or sometimes just for spectacle and intimidation. There is no restraint; he and Musk will do these things until a greater force stops them. Trump is also intent on looking like he has changed things to please his base. Both processes operate in Trump’s relationship with Mexico.
The machine gun spray approach has impacted both powerful Trump supporters, such as the auto industry that objected to indiscriminate tariffs on Mexican exports, as well as loyal ones like the gun industry, whose export licenses the Commerce Department suspended across the board, without announcement, in February. The forces that can reign in Trump’s destructive spree include the courts (unreliable, as witnessed in the Supreme Court’s critical response to Mexico’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers); U.S. civil society (which will take time to organize resistance); other oligarchs and financial interests whom Trump hurts (also unreliable, but like the stock market, sometimes important); and other nations.
In the latter, Mexico’s president Claudia Scheinbaum has proven remarkably able, parrying Trump’s accusations by noting the alliance between U.S. gun dealers and Mexican cartels, while shipping off to the U.S. over two dozen drug traffickers. Scheinbaum also deployed 10,000 troops to its northern border, an action it has taken before, with limited effect. Scheinbaum’s ability to reverse Trump’s punitive tariffs is more remarkable considering how Trump famously mixes bilateral issues. You think you’re negotiating about stopping fentanyl, but in fact it’s about moving legal manufacturing back to the U.S. This is an opening for Mexico to press Trump to take more actions against illegal gun trafficking - which, after all, is what makes all cartel businesses possible.
Meanwhile, we can expect reversals of Biden actions to control gun violence, including Commerce Department regulations restricting gun exports to nongovernmental end users in 36 countries, which will impact communities in both the U.S. and Mexico over the long run. It is imperative that civil society groups, local officials, litigators, and foreign governments open channels and work together to counter actions of the merchants of death with creativity and persistence. All we love depends on it.
John Lindsay-Poland, Coordinator, Stop US Arms to Mexico
The Trump administration is intent on breaking things – presumably to re-make some of them to benefit the president and his cronies, or sometimes just for spectacle and intimidation. There is no restraint; he and Musk will do these things until a greater force stops them. Trump is also intent on looking like he has changed things to please his base. Both processes operate in Trump’s relationship with Mexico.
The machine gun spray approach has impacted both powerful Trump supporters, such as the auto industry that objected to indiscriminate tariffs on Mexican exports, as well as loyal ones like the gun industry, whose export licenses the Commerce Department suspended across the board, without announcement, in February. The forces that can reign in Trump’s destructive spree include the courts (unreliable, as witnessed in the Supreme Court’s critical response to Mexico’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers); U.S. civil society (which will take time to organize resistance); other oligarchs and financial interests whom Trump hurts (also unreliable, but like the stock market, sometimes important); and other nations.
In the latter, Mexico’s president Claudia Scheinbaum has proven remarkably able, parrying Trump’s accusations by noting the alliance between U.S. gun dealers and Mexican cartels, while shipping off to the U.S. over two dozen drug traffickers. Scheinbaum also deployed 10,000 troops to its northern border, an action it has taken before, with limited effect. Scheinbaum’s ability to reverse Trump’s punitive tariffs is more remarkable considering how Trump famously mixes bilateral issues. You think you’re negotiating about stopping fentanyl, but in fact it’s about moving legal manufacturing back to the U.S. This is an opening for Mexico to press Trump to take more actions against illegal gun trafficking - which, after all, is what makes all cartel businesses possible.
Meanwhile, we can expect reversals of Biden actions to control gun violence, including Commerce Department regulations restricting gun exports to nongovernmental end users in 36 countries, which will impact communities in both the U.S. and Mexico over the long run. It is imperative that civil society groups, local officials, litigators, and foreign governments open channels and work together to counter actions of the merchants of death with creativity and persistence. All we love depends on it.
Europe Responding with Greater Militarization
Frank Slijper, Project Leader, Arms Trade, PAX
Fifty days into his second term as president, Trump and his administration have caused unprecedented shock effects in Europe, fundamentally altering the post-World War II alliance, including the central role of NATO. Trump’s repeated intention to incorporate Canada and to acquire Greenland, his administration’s animosity towards Ukrainian president Zelensky and accusations that the EU “screws” the U.S., has made Europe acutely aware that its longtime ally has turned into a potential adversary. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 already caused shock-waves that fundamentally changed the EU’s military posture – the past weeks have made the EU aware of the need to become independent from the U.S..
This has clear implications for military-industrial policies in Europe. Building upon pre-existing instruments such as the European Defence Fund, and a host of initiatives since 2022 (including ASAP, EDIRPA, EDIP), this month new taboos were broken with major new military investment pledges.
It is deeply worrying that, not only in the U.S. but also in Europe, these military-focused developments come with deep cuts in diplomacy and international cooperation.
If there is one clear winner of this arms race it is Europe’s arms industry. While already booming since 2022, the past weeks have seen share prices rise to record levels.
While many here applaud reduced U.S. dependency, including an industry that can independently serve European interests, Europe should not aim to mirror U.S. military strength. Investing in diplomacy and international cooperation (as well as healthcare, education and a green economy) remains more important than ever before.
Frank Slijper, Project Leader, Arms Trade, PAX
Fifty days into his second term as president, Trump and his administration have caused unprecedented shock effects in Europe, fundamentally altering the post-World War II alliance, including the central role of NATO. Trump’s repeated intention to incorporate Canada and to acquire Greenland, his administration’s animosity towards Ukrainian president Zelensky and accusations that the EU “screws” the U.S., has made Europe acutely aware that its longtime ally has turned into a potential adversary. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 already caused shock-waves that fundamentally changed the EU’s military posture – the past weeks have made the EU aware of the need to become independent from the U.S..
This has clear implications for military-industrial policies in Europe. Building upon pre-existing instruments such as the European Defence Fund, and a host of initiatives since 2022 (including ASAP, EDIRPA, EDIP), this month new taboos were broken with major new military investment pledges.
It is deeply worrying that, not only in the U.S. but also in Europe, these military-focused developments come with deep cuts in diplomacy and international cooperation.
If there is one clear winner of this arms race it is Europe’s arms industry. While already booming since 2022, the past weeks have seen share prices rise to record levels.
While many here applaud reduced U.S. dependency, including an industry that can independently serve European interests, Europe should not aim to mirror U.S. military strength. Investing in diplomacy and international cooperation (as well as healthcare, education and a green economy) remains more important than ever before.
Forcing the UK to Rethink
Samuel Perlo-Freeman, Research Coordinator, Campaign Against Arms Trade
President Trump’s 180 turn towards Russia and cutting off of aid to Ukraine creates a huge dilemma for the UK, and arguably upends many of the key pillars of the UK’s foreign policy and defence strategy.
Since the retreat from Empire, the one constant of UK foreign policy has been unconditional loyalty to the U.S., the “Special Relationship”. This has been supported by governments of all colours, even though it has sometimes led to highly unpopular, and disastrous ventures such as the invasion of Iraq and support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. However, since 2022, another key tenet, with cross-party support, has been absolute and unconditional support for Ukraine in its defence against Russia. This position is far more popular, and any retreat from it would be politically costly, as well as counter to UK thinking on European security more broadly.
These positions have now found themselves in conflict. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been awkwardly trying to bridge them by, on the one hand reiterating support for Ukraine, backed up with further arms supplies, while on the other displaying obeisance to Trump, and refraining from uttering a word of criticism of U.S. policies, however counter they run to the UK’s. One of the most shameful elements of this has been the decision to slash overseas aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP to fund an increase in military spending, a move that will both cause untold suffering in recipient countries, but will also ultimately harm UK security, as former head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt has commented. In echoing Trump’s eviscerating of USAID, it almost has the character of a ritual sacrifice as a proof of loyalty.
Longer term, the apparent disappearance of the U.S. as a reliable ally to Europe may force a major rethink of UK defence strategy. As with all of Europe, this means looking towards stronger European military cooperation without U.S. security guarantees. But so much of the UK’s military thinking, reflected in its procurement and force choices, is based on slotting in as a junior partner to U.S. military operations, in the Middle East or potentially the Asia Pacific – an approach wholly unsuited to acting as one of the major European partners in providing a common defence against potential Russian aggression. The notion of the UK sending carrier strike groups to the western Pacific in support of the U.S. and as a show of force against China has always been ludicrous, but the absurdity is now even more glaring and harder to hide.
For the moment, Starmer’s approach has not come obviously unstuck, but like someone standing with one foot on each of two objects moving in opposite directions, it can’t last. The UK’s perennial notion of acting as a bridge between the U.S. and Europe is rapidly losing credibility.
Samuel Perlo-Freeman, Research Coordinator, Campaign Against Arms Trade
President Trump’s 180 turn towards Russia and cutting off of aid to Ukraine creates a huge dilemma for the UK, and arguably upends many of the key pillars of the UK’s foreign policy and defence strategy.
Since the retreat from Empire, the one constant of UK foreign policy has been unconditional loyalty to the U.S., the “Special Relationship”. This has been supported by governments of all colours, even though it has sometimes led to highly unpopular, and disastrous ventures such as the invasion of Iraq and support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza. However, since 2022, another key tenet, with cross-party support, has been absolute and unconditional support for Ukraine in its defence against Russia. This position is far more popular, and any retreat from it would be politically costly, as well as counter to UK thinking on European security more broadly.
These positions have now found themselves in conflict. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has been awkwardly trying to bridge them by, on the one hand reiterating support for Ukraine, backed up with further arms supplies, while on the other displaying obeisance to Trump, and refraining from uttering a word of criticism of U.S. policies, however counter they run to the UK’s. One of the most shameful elements of this has been the decision to slash overseas aid spending from 0.5% to 0.3% of GDP to fund an increase in military spending, a move that will both cause untold suffering in recipient countries, but will also ultimately harm UK security, as former head of the British Army General Sir Richard Dannatt has commented. In echoing Trump’s eviscerating of USAID, it almost has the character of a ritual sacrifice as a proof of loyalty.
Longer term, the apparent disappearance of the U.S. as a reliable ally to Europe may force a major rethink of UK defence strategy. As with all of Europe, this means looking towards stronger European military cooperation without U.S. security guarantees. But so much of the UK’s military thinking, reflected in its procurement and force choices, is based on slotting in as a junior partner to U.S. military operations, in the Middle East or potentially the Asia Pacific – an approach wholly unsuited to acting as one of the major European partners in providing a common defence against potential Russian aggression. The notion of the UK sending carrier strike groups to the western Pacific in support of the U.S. and as a show of force against China has always been ludicrous, but the absurdity is now even more glaring and harder to hide.
For the moment, Starmer’s approach has not come obviously unstuck, but like someone standing with one foot on each of two objects moving in opposite directions, it can’t last. The UK’s perennial notion of acting as a bridge between the U.S. and Europe is rapidly losing credibility.
U.S. Funding Cuts to Humanitarian Demining
Henrique Garbino, Doctoral candidate, Swedish Defense University
The now out-of-date website of the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement states that “the United States is the world’s leading financial supporter of conventional weapons destruction (CWD), providing more than $4.6 billion in assistance to more than 100 countries and territories since 1993. The CWD program helps foreign governments destroy excess stockpiles of conventional arms, better secure the stockpiles they retain, and clear landmines and unexploded ordnance. Our efforts reduce the likelihood that weapons and ammunition will fall into the wrong hands and protect civilian populations from deadly hazards. By alleviating these threats to civilian security, this program demonstrates core U.S. values that respect the dignity of every human being.” From 2019 to 2023, the U.S. contributed $1.2 billion to mine action globally, accounting for 37% of all international support. However, the recent abrupt funding freeze and potential long-term cuts threaten to reverse these hard-won gains, drastically slowing demining activities, leaving landmines and unexploded ordnance in place indefinitely, and potentially causing a preventable spike in civilian casualties.
While all funding was initially frozen, it remains unclear how much has since been cut, restored (if any), or temporarily allowed to continue, leaving the full impact uncertain. This uncertainty severely destabilizes international organisations, NGOs, and private companies that have long relied on consistent U.S. funding. Several mine action organisations have laid off a large part of their global demining workforce due to halted U.S. aid, jeopardizing crucial life-saving projects across the globe. The Danish Refugee Council and the Norwegian People’s Aid, for example, had to lay off thousands of their work force across Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kosovo, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Niger, Palau, Peru, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Yemen. The capacity lost due to these cuts will be extraordinarily costly and painfully slow to rebuild, as recruiting and training deminers, securing specialized equipment, and restarting field operations take significant time and resources. Other traditional donors, like the United Kingdom and the European Union, may struggle to compensate for this sudden void, especially as rising defense budgets are diverting funds away from humanitarian and development aid.
The U.S. also has a particular obligation to support demining efforts in countries contaminated by previous American-led wars, such as in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, where decades-old ordnance still threatens civilians. Moreover, mine action is also a strategic security concern for the U.S., as instability fueled by unexploded ordnance can foster resentment, hinder economic recovery, and create conditions for violent mobilisation. Beyond humanitarian and security concerns, these cuts critically weaken U.S. influence in post-conflict recovery, recklessly ceding ground to geopolitical rivals. For example, China has already stepped in, funding demining in Cambodia as U.S. aid stalls. The ultimate cost of this funding lapse will be measured in innocent lives lost and limbs shattered—children playing in fields turned into minefields, farmers unknowingly ploughing explosive-laden soil, and families returning home only to be met with lethal remnants of war. Every day of delay means more preventable tragedies.
Henrique Garbino, Doctoral candidate, Swedish Defense University
The now out-of-date website of the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement states that “the United States is the world’s leading financial supporter of conventional weapons destruction (CWD), providing more than $4.6 billion in assistance to more than 100 countries and territories since 1993. The CWD program helps foreign governments destroy excess stockpiles of conventional arms, better secure the stockpiles they retain, and clear landmines and unexploded ordnance. Our efforts reduce the likelihood that weapons and ammunition will fall into the wrong hands and protect civilian populations from deadly hazards. By alleviating these threats to civilian security, this program demonstrates core U.S. values that respect the dignity of every human being.” From 2019 to 2023, the U.S. contributed $1.2 billion to mine action globally, accounting for 37% of all international support. However, the recent abrupt funding freeze and potential long-term cuts threaten to reverse these hard-won gains, drastically slowing demining activities, leaving landmines and unexploded ordnance in place indefinitely, and potentially causing a preventable spike in civilian casualties.
While all funding was initially frozen, it remains unclear how much has since been cut, restored (if any), or temporarily allowed to continue, leaving the full impact uncertain. This uncertainty severely destabilizes international organisations, NGOs, and private companies that have long relied on consistent U.S. funding. Several mine action organisations have laid off a large part of their global demining workforce due to halted U.S. aid, jeopardizing crucial life-saving projects across the globe. The Danish Refugee Council and the Norwegian People’s Aid, for example, had to lay off thousands of their work force across Afghanistan, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Colombia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Kosovo, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Niger, Palau, Peru, South Sudan, Sudan, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Vietnam, and Yemen. The capacity lost due to these cuts will be extraordinarily costly and painfully slow to rebuild, as recruiting and training deminers, securing specialized equipment, and restarting field operations take significant time and resources. Other traditional donors, like the United Kingdom and the European Union, may struggle to compensate for this sudden void, especially as rising defense budgets are diverting funds away from humanitarian and development aid.
The U.S. also has a particular obligation to support demining efforts in countries contaminated by previous American-led wars, such as in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, where decades-old ordnance still threatens civilians. Moreover, mine action is also a strategic security concern for the U.S., as instability fueled by unexploded ordnance can foster resentment, hinder economic recovery, and create conditions for violent mobilisation. Beyond humanitarian and security concerns, these cuts critically weaken U.S. influence in post-conflict recovery, recklessly ceding ground to geopolitical rivals. For example, China has already stepped in, funding demining in Cambodia as U.S. aid stalls. The ultimate cost of this funding lapse will be measured in innocent lives lost and limbs shattered—children playing in fields turned into minefields, farmers unknowingly ploughing explosive-laden soil, and families returning home only to be met with lethal remnants of war. Every day of delay means more preventable tragedies.
Politics of Contradiction
Camilo Serna, National Director, Asociación Campaña Colombiana Contra Minas (Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines)
Last week, President Trump introduced tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China arguing that they were needed because of those countries lack of action against drugs. While some of those tariffs were then quickly put on hold, thousands of people will surely suffer the economic rigor of not being able to compete with their products in the U.S. markets.
Meanwhile, in a remote area of southern Colombia, my organization – the Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines – is firing more than 122 people, most of them farmers, because the successful mine-clearing program, which has destroyed more than 200 anti-personnel mines, must be cancelled for not being in line with the policies of the U.S. State Department.
This remote region of Colombia is called Putumayo and is one of the areas with the largest amount of coca crops in the world with approximately 20,000 hectares of land cultivated with coca leaves.
Putumayo covers a large area of the Colombian Amazon. It is a remote department, difficult to access, and most of the population has no employment other than growing coca leaves. The other major employers in the area are a few oil companies and humanitarian demining.
The cancelled project will not only leave thousands of people exposed to the anti-personnel mines that are still planted, but it will also allow many of the drug traffickers who exploit this region to have new labor created by the need for employment, which will surely extend and perpetuate the drug business for many more years.
Camilo Serna, National Director, Asociación Campaña Colombiana Contra Minas (Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines)
Last week, President Trump introduced tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China arguing that they were needed because of those countries lack of action against drugs. While some of those tariffs were then quickly put on hold, thousands of people will surely suffer the economic rigor of not being able to compete with their products in the U.S. markets.
Meanwhile, in a remote area of southern Colombia, my organization – the Colombian Campaign to Ban Landmines – is firing more than 122 people, most of them farmers, because the successful mine-clearing program, which has destroyed more than 200 anti-personnel mines, must be cancelled for not being in line with the policies of the U.S. State Department.
This remote region of Colombia is called Putumayo and is one of the areas with the largest amount of coca crops in the world with approximately 20,000 hectares of land cultivated with coca leaves.
Putumayo covers a large area of the Colombian Amazon. It is a remote department, difficult to access, and most of the population has no employment other than growing coca leaves. The other major employers in the area are a few oil companies and humanitarian demining.
The cancelled project will not only leave thousands of people exposed to the anti-personnel mines that are still planted, but it will also allow many of the drug traffickers who exploit this region to have new labor created by the need for employment, which will surely extend and perpetuate the drug business for many more years.
Chaos Я US
Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, Independent Consultant
At the top of the webpage a blue banner says “Work with USAID: The power of partnership starts here”, and smiling pictures of, one supposes, ‘partners’. The text of this 28 January 2025 message will wipe the smiles off many faces. It ordered all recipient organizations of USAID funding to stop work, and to immediately report that they have done so. This simple letter has upended lives and caused chaos around the planet, but I will comment here on only a couple examples related to Burma.
The U.S.- based International Rescue Committee, founded by a WWII refugee named Albert Einstein, was the sole organization which ran clinics within the refugee camps on the Burma-Thailand border. It received U.S. AID funding for those clinics. Overnight, medical care for over 100,000 people was cut off like flipping a light switch. The clinics were padlocked and all patients were expelled. The most severe cases were taken in by the Thailand medical system, midwives moved labouring women to a former school, at least one died within days of the loss of their medical support.
This is only the tip of the iceberg on the Burma-Thailand border. A massive international assistance effort supports the refugee camps on the Thailand side, and also provides cross-border food aid to almost one million internally displaced people on the Burma side. These are people who have fled armed conflict deeper within Burma but have no wish to leave their country. The food and other aid on which both of these populations depend is provided through a multi-nation effort. The U.S. was a major part of that effort, and within 30 days due to the loss of the U.S. assistance, the remaining available funds to support both populations is projected to be depleted.
Once international assistance halts, these people will be forced by circumstances to move to survive. They will move in one direction. Away from war. Which means toward Thailand or deeper into it. Thailand, long seen as a U.S. ally in Southeast Asia, now has to prepare for this likely movement of people.
The chaos being caused by the U.S. global halt in most humanitarian assistance is also being felt in the Rohingya refugee camps on the Bangladesh-Burma border. Most of these refugees fled a military campaign launched against them in 2017 which the United Nations described as text book ethnic cleansing. Prior to January 2025, the U.S. had contributed half of all international assistance for the support of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. However a week ago, in early March, the World Food Programme announced that due to the aid cut back food rations for the refugees will be cut in half.
Both Thailand and Bangladesh are now facing crises which are directly attributable to the capricious approach the new regime in Washington DC has taken to the United States’ overseas commitments.
(The author lives in Bangkok, Thailand)
Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan, Independent Consultant
At the top of the webpage a blue banner says “Work with USAID: The power of partnership starts here”, and smiling pictures of, one supposes, ‘partners’. The text of this 28 January 2025 message will wipe the smiles off many faces. It ordered all recipient organizations of USAID funding to stop work, and to immediately report that they have done so. This simple letter has upended lives and caused chaos around the planet, but I will comment here on only a couple examples related to Burma.
The U.S.- based International Rescue Committee, founded by a WWII refugee named Albert Einstein, was the sole organization which ran clinics within the refugee camps on the Burma-Thailand border. It received U.S. AID funding for those clinics. Overnight, medical care for over 100,000 people was cut off like flipping a light switch. The clinics were padlocked and all patients were expelled. The most severe cases were taken in by the Thailand medical system, midwives moved labouring women to a former school, at least one died within days of the loss of their medical support.
This is only the tip of the iceberg on the Burma-Thailand border. A massive international assistance effort supports the refugee camps on the Thailand side, and also provides cross-border food aid to almost one million internally displaced people on the Burma side. These are people who have fled armed conflict deeper within Burma but have no wish to leave their country. The food and other aid on which both of these populations depend is provided through a multi-nation effort. The U.S. was a major part of that effort, and within 30 days due to the loss of the U.S. assistance, the remaining available funds to support both populations is projected to be depleted.
Once international assistance halts, these people will be forced by circumstances to move to survive. They will move in one direction. Away from war. Which means toward Thailand or deeper into it. Thailand, long seen as a U.S. ally in Southeast Asia, now has to prepare for this likely movement of people.
The chaos being caused by the U.S. global halt in most humanitarian assistance is also being felt in the Rohingya refugee camps on the Bangladesh-Burma border. Most of these refugees fled a military campaign launched against them in 2017 which the United Nations described as text book ethnic cleansing. Prior to January 2025, the U.S. had contributed half of all international assistance for the support of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. However a week ago, in early March, the World Food Programme announced that due to the aid cut back food rations for the refugees will be cut in half.
Both Thailand and Bangladesh are now facing crises which are directly attributable to the capricious approach the new regime in Washington DC has taken to the United States’ overseas commitments.
(The author lives in Bangkok, Thailand)
Cancellation of U.S. international cooperation contracts threaten the lives and livelihoods of thousands of war victims and their families around the world
Authored anonymously by two community colleagues
The impact of suspensions and cancellations of U.S.-funded projects must be analyzed in the context of a wider trend to reduce funding for international cooperation. As reported by Humanity & Inclusion and others, France, the UK, Belgium and the EU announced cuts in 2024. International cooperation in its current form remains problematic for various reasons; however, these sudden cuts are certainly not the way forward to ensure safer, healthier, more peaceful local and global communities. Survivors of conflict, in particular, are affected disproportionately because of the intersecting effects of the cuts to humanitarian aid with those to mine action, to disability rights, to organizations of persons with disabilities themselves, and to diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives more widely.
In Vietnam, for instance, U.S.-funded organizations that support victims of agent orange and of unexploded ordnance have already stopped operations. Both weapons were deployed by the U.S. in one of the most extensive aerial bombardments in history (possibly only surpassed by the genocidal bombardment of Gaza by Israeli Defense Forces). While working with survivors in Quang Tri, one of the authors witnessed the challenges faced by people living with disabilities resulting from agent orange and UXO: the impacts of the U.S. bombing are still widespread, and have pervasive intergenerational effects. The very least that the U.S. could do is continue to fund efforts to start to redress the harm it caused.
In Colombia, the U.S. supported programs in conflict-affected communities. According to one of the authors, who is in Nariño himself, some of U.S.-supported projects that have now come to a stop just in that province include: a) a reintegration program for persons who had left non-state armed groups; b) a project that provided employment for landmine/ERW survivors; c) humanitarian mine action programs that protected communities from mines/ERW and employed survivors. Additionally, a survivor organization had established a partnership with an international NGO to advance the rights of persons with disabilities in Nariño – it has now been cancelled. Hundreds will be unemployed, and soon without access to basic services, and face heightened risks of violence.
Not just in Colombia, the consequences of U.S. cuts are particularly harmful for countries in Latin America, which already received little international assistance from other regions. Additionally, women survivors will see the little access they had to sexual and reproductive health services disappear, in a context where they already ten times more likely to be victims of sexual violence than others. Women survivors have highlighted this often, yet Mine Ban Treaty state parties have mostly ignored it. Children survivors will also be disproportionately affected due to U.S. efforts to stop accessibility, anti-racist and gender and inclusive approaches in child rights’ programming – as the authors heard first hand from a U.S. diplomat at a UNICEF meeting last month.
Once again, the U.S. shows the lack of coherence between what they like to talk about (human rights, the rule of law, the SDGs) and what their actions and budgets demonstrate (self-absorption, disregard for the most marginalized, not a care for human rights in practice). International cooperation and human rights? Disposable. As Joe Biden once said: “Don't tell me what you value: show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
Furthermore, even from the utilitarian perspective that obviously guides the actions of those in power in the U.S., cutting international cooperation does not make sense: the long-term consequences that are already affecting millions from marginalized groups around the world will soon circle back and affect U.S. For instance: reduced access to health care may result in higher incidence of epidemics worldwide - including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and cholera - threatening the U.S. along with other countries; more unemployment in countries in conflict or post-conflict such as Afghanistan, Syria and Sudan may increase illegal activities and radicalization which may in turn affect the U.S.; more people may aim to migrate to the U.S. (which President Trump aims to reduce) due to increased poverty and inequalities; and the global economy will also be affected, eventually decreasing overall trade and economic growth -- to name but a few probable consequences.
Authored anonymously by two community colleagues
The impact of suspensions and cancellations of U.S.-funded projects must be analyzed in the context of a wider trend to reduce funding for international cooperation. As reported by Humanity & Inclusion and others, France, the UK, Belgium and the EU announced cuts in 2024. International cooperation in its current form remains problematic for various reasons; however, these sudden cuts are certainly not the way forward to ensure safer, healthier, more peaceful local and global communities. Survivors of conflict, in particular, are affected disproportionately because of the intersecting effects of the cuts to humanitarian aid with those to mine action, to disability rights, to organizations of persons with disabilities themselves, and to diversity, equality and inclusion initiatives more widely.
In Vietnam, for instance, U.S.-funded organizations that support victims of agent orange and of unexploded ordnance have already stopped operations. Both weapons were deployed by the U.S. in one of the most extensive aerial bombardments in history (possibly only surpassed by the genocidal bombardment of Gaza by Israeli Defense Forces). While working with survivors in Quang Tri, one of the authors witnessed the challenges faced by people living with disabilities resulting from agent orange and UXO: the impacts of the U.S. bombing are still widespread, and have pervasive intergenerational effects. The very least that the U.S. could do is continue to fund efforts to start to redress the harm it caused.
In Colombia, the U.S. supported programs in conflict-affected communities. According to one of the authors, who is in Nariño himself, some of U.S.-supported projects that have now come to a stop just in that province include: a) a reintegration program for persons who had left non-state armed groups; b) a project that provided employment for landmine/ERW survivors; c) humanitarian mine action programs that protected communities from mines/ERW and employed survivors. Additionally, a survivor organization had established a partnership with an international NGO to advance the rights of persons with disabilities in Nariño – it has now been cancelled. Hundreds will be unemployed, and soon without access to basic services, and face heightened risks of violence.
Not just in Colombia, the consequences of U.S. cuts are particularly harmful for countries in Latin America, which already received little international assistance from other regions. Additionally, women survivors will see the little access they had to sexual and reproductive health services disappear, in a context where they already ten times more likely to be victims of sexual violence than others. Women survivors have highlighted this often, yet Mine Ban Treaty state parties have mostly ignored it. Children survivors will also be disproportionately affected due to U.S. efforts to stop accessibility, anti-racist and gender and inclusive approaches in child rights’ programming – as the authors heard first hand from a U.S. diplomat at a UNICEF meeting last month.
Once again, the U.S. shows the lack of coherence between what they like to talk about (human rights, the rule of law, the SDGs) and what their actions and budgets demonstrate (self-absorption, disregard for the most marginalized, not a care for human rights in practice). International cooperation and human rights? Disposable. As Joe Biden once said: “Don't tell me what you value: show me your budget, and I'll tell you what you value.”
Furthermore, even from the utilitarian perspective that obviously guides the actions of those in power in the U.S., cutting international cooperation does not make sense: the long-term consequences that are already affecting millions from marginalized groups around the world will soon circle back and affect U.S. For instance: reduced access to health care may result in higher incidence of epidemics worldwide - including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and cholera - threatening the U.S. along with other countries; more unemployment in countries in conflict or post-conflict such as Afghanistan, Syria and Sudan may increase illegal activities and radicalization which may in turn affect the U.S.; more people may aim to migrate to the U.S. (which President Trump aims to reduce) due to increased poverty and inequalities; and the global economy will also be affected, eventually decreasing overall trade and economic growth -- to name but a few probable consequences.