The world changed on January 20th, 2025, when Donald Trump was inaugurated as US president for a second term. In the following weeks, he made decisions that have radically changed US domestic and foreign policy. His domestic policy changes are an assault on the role of the state in providing services for US citizens, with unelected Elon Musk leading the charge.
His changes in foreign policy represent no less than a dismantling of the world order that the then-US government brought about after the second World War under statesmen such as Harry Truman, George Marshall and Dean Acheson – the Pax Americana – which has prevailed, more or less, until the present day.
It remains to be seen what impact his range of tariff impositions will have on future international trading arrangements and on global economic growth.
The main focus of this article is on the impact of his decisions on the global humanitarian situation and the prospects for international development.
‘It is so expensive in Dublin we decided to rent’: Swedish embassy returns to capital
Tenants who were ‘full of hatred’ followed and video-recorded neighbours, tribunal hears
‘I was 34 and all my friends were having kids... I was like: what am I waiting for?’
Consumers could face €1,000 increase in bills across energy, broadband and other areas from this week
Among his earliest decisions was to withdraw the US from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Paris Climate Agreement.
He signed an executive order on January 20th confirming the US intention to withdraw from the WHO but, days later, indicated a willingness to rejoin if substantial reforms were made, including on the organisation’s funding and leadership changes favouring US representation.
He directed the immediate withdrawal of the US from the Paris pact and the termination of all financial commitments associated with the agreement including contributions to international climate finance initiatives. However, the US remains a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), preserving its rights and obligations under the original 1992 treaty.
Big decisions were taken on the foreign assistance agency USAID. Elon Musk said it was “a criminal organisation and it was time for it to die”. President Trump said it “was run by a bunch of radical lunatics”.
All USAID programmes are to be reviewed within 90 days. It was decided to terminate some 92 per cent of its foreign aid contracts, amounting to an almost $60 billion (€57 billion) cut: reduce its workforce from more than 10,000 employees to fewer than 300 and to merge USAid’s functions into the State Department aiming to centralise foreign aid decisions and aligning them with current US policy, notably regarding gender equality.
There is merit in evaluating these decisions based on short- and longer-term humanitarian impact and their impact on the world’s development agenda represented by the UN sustainable development goals and whatever agenda succeeds them post-2030.
Humanitarian impact
In 2023, Official Development Assistance (ODA) amounted to $223.3 billion: the US contributed $71.9 billion, approximately 32 per cent. A cut of some $60 billion in the US ODA – about 1 per cent of the federal budget – will have significant implications for all humanitarian and development work.
The short-term effects of the cuts are being felt in humanitarian assistance, global health programmes and conflict zones. The US president’s emergency plan for Aids relief (PEPFAR), the HIV/Aids programme supported by the US since its introduction in 2003, is being severely affected and hundreds of thousands could lose access to life-saving treatment.
Bill Gates has warned these actions could undermine decades of progress in global health and could result “in literally millions of deaths”.
The long-term impacts could be even more severe, leading to greater instability, economic decline and health crises.
Should the impacts of the cuts unfold as indicated above, the US’s global reputation is likely to be severely damaged, amounting to a wide–ranging act of political self–harm. Should the human costs of the cuts and the reputational and political damage they will bring be recognised – probably unlikely in the current political climate – some USAID programmes might be spared at the end of the 90-day review process. In that event, the most likely programmes to be reprieved are emergency humanitarian assistance, PEPFAR, which was an initiative of President George W Bush, and the food aid programme – due to its links with US farmers supplying the food.
Longer-term impact
For decades the international community has been working to tackle the great issues confronting humanity: food and nutrition security, global health and – in recent decades – climate change and global warming. These various international meetings represent political and institutional capital and valuable networks to tackle current and future global challenges. In many instances, the US has provided leadership in these initiatives.
Four important international meetings are planned during 2025 as part of this longer-term process. They are the Nutrition for Growth (N4G) Summit in Paris in March: the fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FFD4) in Seville in June-July; the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) +4 in Addis Ababa in July; and the UN Climate Change Conference – Cop30 – in Belem in the Amazon region in Brazil in November.
While the US cuts are the most severe, other OECD countries are also cutting ODA budgets due to political shifts to the right, fiscal pressures and changing priorities. Ireland is an outlier among these countries in that it maintains its commitment to allocate 0.7 per cent of its gross national income to ODA by 2030. In January 2025 the incoming government committed “to increase its ODA annually working towards the 0.7 per cent target”.
The four meetings in 2025 face the challenge of maintaining political and policy momentum towards their separate and complementary goals. The challenges facing each meeting are, in many cases, getting worse, particularly global warming.
Strong political leadership and policy creativity will be required if the meetings are to make progress. The US will participate in these meetings: it is not known what its policy input will be but it is unlikely to have a positive leadership role as was frequently the case in the past.
Cop30 has the potential to be one of the most consequential climate summits in recent years. Brazil’s reputation as an effective global actor was enhanced in its role as chair of the G20 (2023/24). South Africa has succeeded Brazil as G20 Chair (2024/25). Ireland has been appointed by South Africa as a “friend of the G20″ to contribute to the work programme, a key part of which is on food security. This is a striking acknowledgment of Ireland’s long-standing action and advocacy on peace, African development, and food and nutrition security.
In setting the agenda for Cop30 Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula De Silva has created the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty. This decision is consistent with Lula’s deep personal commitment to end hunger and poverty, based on his childhood personal experience.
The recently appointed president of Cop30, ambassador Andre Correa do Lago, is highly regarded internationally as a diplomat and climate scientist, having negotiated a number of Cops. He is supported by a team of effective officials, as I saw during a recent trip to Brazil.
Do Lago has already indicated he wants to accelerate the transition of agreed measures under previous Cops into concrete actions. The formal action agenda for Cop30 will be proposed by Brazil at a UNFCCC meeting in Bonn in June. This will set the framework for subsequent negotiations leading to the final agreement in November.
Among the key elements of that final agreement is likely to be a Belém declaration on climate, hunger and poverty, building on the United Arab Emirates' declaration on sustainable agriculture, resilient food systems and climate action, agreed at Cop28 in Dubai and signed by 159 countries.
Ireland can play a leadership and influential role at the 2025 meetings by advocating clear policy priorities and linking with like-minded partners, particularly the EU. The credibility of its advocacy can be enhanced by stressing the coherence between its domestic and foreign policy on sustainable food systems and climate action.
Irish political leaders and officials are facing a hectic 2025, in optimising their influence at the four meetings; shaping the content of the global alliance against hunger and poverty, and contributing to the G20 work programme, specifically on food security. It is a responsibility which should be welcomed and delivered upon.
- Tom Arnold is chairman of the Ireland Africa Rural Development Committee
