\n
![](\"https:\/\/en.hamsonews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/5363231.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
BEIRUT \u2014 Trump\u2019s issuance of an executive order to suspend funding for all projects funded by USAID has raised concerns among various Lebanese NGOs as it pays 22% of the total funding for the response plan in Lebanon.<\/p>\n
For the year 2025, USAID had requested $72,245,000. Suspending it now would mean cutting funding for the UN World Food Programme (WFP) in Lebanon, to which USAID has allocated about $45 million. Thus, 170,000 Lebanese and 570,000 Syrian \u201crefugees\u201d will be cut off from aid provided by the WFP.<\/p>\n
According to the US embassy in Beirut, USAID spent about $293 million in Lebanon, during 2024. \u00a0USAID also participated in financing the Rapid Response Fund (RRF) with an amount of $128 million, representing 40.1% of the total amount paid to international organizations operating in Lebanon.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Trump decided to suspend most US foreign aid under the pretext of implementing a 3-month review to assess the extent to which this \u201caid\u201d is consistent with the \u201cAmerica First\u201d policy based on reducing foreign spending and spending it domestically.<\/p>\n
Trump believes that it is possible to achieve the imperialist goals sought by these institutions without paying these amounts.<\/p>\n
As a businessman, Trump believes that a single tweet can threaten a country like Colombia with raising customs tariffs and sanctions without the need to spend millions to exploit local NGOs to influence its official policy.<\/p>\n
It is noteworthy that Trump excluded Egypt and the Israeli occupation entity. Between 1946 and 2022, the latter received about $317.9 billion in aid, while Egypt received about $182 billion.\u00a0<\/p>\n
To deal with the expected financial shortage, these Lebanese NGOs have rushed to lay off a large number of employees, noting that Trump\u2019s decision will also have obvious repercussions on various projects funded by Washington in Lebanon.<\/p>\n
As mentioned earlier, Trump\u2019s decision will lead to the cessation of the activities of the WFP in Lebanon, which USAID allocated about 62.2% of the amount it needs, while 8 international agencies were to receive the remaining amount of $27 million.<\/p>\n
Among these international agencies are: the International Organization for Migration (which was to receive $12 million); the World Health Organization (which was to receive $3.5 million).<\/p>\n
Annually, the Asian continent tops the list of USAID funding with $20 billion, followed by Africa with $14 billion, which exposes the extent of Washington\u2019s interest in its areas of imperial expansion.<\/p>\n
Besides, the \u201cglobal governance\u201d sector receives about $16.8 billion annually from USAID, as \u201cgovernance\u201d is one of the tools that Washington uses to direct global economies towards neoliberalism.<\/p>\n
The term \u201cglobal governance\u201d refers to the rules through which formal structures such as governments are directed, as well as informal structures such as NGOs.<\/p>\n
During his first term (2017-2021), Trump sought to cut foreign aid budgets less radically than he has in his current term.<\/p>\n
At the time, observers believed he was convinced that \u201cimposing maximum sanctions on Iran\u201d and toppling anti-American governments were of high priority.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Now, Trump claims that he will not base his decisions on the whims of the deep state in the US (the establishment), threatening to \u201cexercise his authority to direct foreign policy.\u201d<\/p>\n
Seemingly, the neoliberal cultural globalist movement (close to the Democrats) is likely to bridge the gap.<\/p>\n
Glenn Dessen, a Russian foreign policy professor, compares Biden\u2019s policies and his successor Trump\u2019s impact on global governance, noting that both share the goal of preserving the United States\u2019 \u201cunipolarity.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cBiden sought to restore the US greatness through ideological alliance systems that fragment the world into regional blocs, bolster the loyalty of allies, and marginalize adversaries,\u201d he states.<\/p>\n
In contrast, \u201cTrump seeks to withdraw from global governance institutions, which drain the US resources because he believes the alliance system is too costly and limits diplomatic freedom of maneuver.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Glenn Desen warns that unipolarity \u201cencourages other states to work collectively to diversify economic and military enterprises and develop new regional institutions of global governance.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n