The reorganization of $ 1.8 billion in foreign aid announced by the White House during Donald Trump’s second term marked a fundamental fracture in the long-standing understanding of “soft power” of the United States of America (USA).[i] It aimed at a more direct struggle against governments described as “Marxist and anti-American”, such as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. In addition, some of these funds are allocated to Europe and Greenland for strategic mining and energy investments, and the rest is used to counter China’s influence in Latin America. This move has shifted the US global aid policy from humanitarian foundations to a security axis line.
Trump’s ”America First” policy has also manifested itself in cuts to international aid budgets and shifts in priority during his first presidential term. However, the second period made this approach more institutional and comprehensive. The emphasis on “strengthening national security” and “enhancing American prosperity” in the White House’s notification to Congress has set out a vision of foreign aid based on geopolitical benefit rather than classical humanitarian aid.[ii] This has meant a marked shift away from the focus on “food, health and economic development” that has defined US foreign aid for many years.
The Trump administration has targeted countries that it defines as “authoritarian regimes”, especially in Latin America. This plan, citing the anti-US rhetoric of left-leaning governments such as Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, as well as their closeness to China and Russia, was a reflection of Washington’s effort to restore its regional influence.
Latin America has long been a critical area of the United States both economically and in terms of security. From the Monroe Doctrine to the Cold War, from the “war on drugs” policies to the current migration crisis, Washington has established a historical influence on the region. This fund-raising move in Trump’s second term can be read as a modern manifestation of this tradition.
According to the plan, the allocation of $400 million to Latin America highlights two main goals: preventing illegal migration and curbing China’s growing influence in the mining and technology sectors. China has significantly increased its infrastructure, energy and mineral investments in the region from Venezuela to Argentina over the past decade. The United States thought that this influence would weaken its own economic and strategic interests, and therefore prioritized new funds for Latin America.
This step has created a financial basis that can support policies such as tougher economic sanctions, especially against Venezuela, restricting the Nicaraguan government’s access to international financing sources, and increasing diplomatic pressure on Cuba. Therefore, the funds have served as a lever not only for development projects, but also for strengthening political influence.
It is also noteworthy that the plan is not limited to Latin America only. the diversion of a separate part of $ 400 million to Europe, especially Greenland and Ukraine, has revealed the priorities of the United States in the areas of access to strategic resources and geopolitical competition. Trump’s interest in Greenland is linked to the region’s rare earth elements and energy potential. The energy and critical mineral programs for Ukraine can be explained both by an economic balance against Russia and by the goal of supporting Europe’s energy security.
These elements have shown that Washington has invested not only in its military power on a global scale, but also in control over economic and strategic resources. Thus, the United States has stopped foreign aid from being “aid” in the classical sense and turned it into an instrument of direct national security and geoeconomic interests.
According to the US Constitution, the approval of Congress is required for budget allocation. In order for the Trump administration to implement this plan, it is essential that it passes through Congress. However, the hawkish wing within the Republicans was expected to support national security reasons, while the Democrats were expected to oppose the cuts to the humanitarian aid budget. This situation has started a new discussion in domestic politics. Democrats, recalling that these funds were previously reserved for food and health programs in crisis areas, argued that the cuts would deepen humanitarian disasters.
However, Trump has tried to gain domestic political advantage by giving a message to his voter base that “our taxes will be spent for America’s security and prosperity.” This rhetoric has pleased conservative voters who are concerned about immigration and security issues. Therefore, the plan is positioned as a strategic tool in both domestic and foreign policy
This policy change has been closely watched by Washington’s traditional allies and the countries it targets. Left-leaning governments in Latin America have considered this diversion of funds as a new example of the interventionist attitude of the United States. The governments of Caracas, Havana and Managua have made harsh statements that the United States is “interfering in their sovereignty”.
On the other hand, pro-US governments in the region (Colombia and Ecuador, for example) have shown cautious satisfaction with the expectation that these funds can contribute to their own security and development projects. In Europe, the funds allocated to Greenland and Ukraine have revealed the intention of the United States to strengthen strategic partnerships. However, some circles within the European Union (EU) have been concerned that these grants may be an element of pressure to influence EU policies.
One of the cornerstones of US foreign policy for many years has been the practice of “soft power” through humanitarian aid and development projects. However, Trump’s new plan has broken this tradition and clearly made foreign aid a strategic instrument. This situation has also created a new competitive field for other actors of the global order. By taking advantage of this gap, China and Russia can increase their own humanitarian aid and investment programs, which can change the global balance of power.
The Trump administration’s plan to redirect $1.8 billion in foreign aid funding has been not just a budget adjustment, but a redefinition of the United States’ global role. This policy, which aims at direct intervention against “authoritarian regimes” in Latin America, limiting China’s influence in the region and access to strategic resources in Europe, has reshaped Washington’s concept of foreign aid on the axis of security and geoeconomics.
This step may have served to increase the regional influence of the United States in the short term, but in the long term, a decrease in humanitarian assistance may lead to the emergence of new humanitarian disasters in crisis areas. In addition, the discussions at the Congress and the international reactions will be the main factors that will determine the viability and sustainability of this plan. The US transition from ”soft power“ to ”protectionist power” has created a turning point that will affect not only Latin America, but the entire global order.
[i] Fernández, Sleither. “Trump Plans to Redirect Foreign Aid Resources Towards Confronting ‘Authoritarian Regimes’ in Latin America.” Guacamaya, guacamayave.com/en/trump-plans-to-redirect-foreign-aid-resources-toward-confronting-authoritarian-regimes-in-latin-america-2/, (Access Date: 28.09.2025).
[ii]Ibid.
