Going Back: What to Expect in a Return to Trump’s Humanitarian Policy

Author:	Will Jamison Wright
Date:	5. December 2024

The results of the recent election add a new layer of complexity to an already fragile world order teetering on the edge – or perhaps over the edge now – of a historic reshuffle. The magnitude of this reshuffle is yet to be seen and will be defined by the new president and his cabinet. Unfortunately, this chaos on the world stage is reflected in similar chaos in the humanitarian system. So how will the new president impact this struggling system? To examine this question, I will focus on the bigger picture as the specific policies of the Trump administration are yet to be seen. However, the general political direction on humanitarian issues – and interrelated issues on the rule of law, democracy, and global stability – have been hinted at. So if Kamala Harris’ slogan of ‘we are not going back’ has been proven wrong, it makes sense to look at where we are, how we got set on our new course, and what ‘back’ looks like on these issues.

Where We Are.

4 years ago, I tried to highlight how the then new president Biden would define his humanitarian policy. While this was – to some extent – successful early in his term, the wars in Ukraine, Palestine, and Lebanon and an influx of immigrants and asylum seekers have complicated – to say the least – the relationship between a president touted for his compassion and to restore the US’s name on the international stage and the humanitarian sector, humanitarian action, and international humanitarian law.

The current administration’s harshening policies on the southern border, ending of the humanitarian parole policy for some nationalities, and poor handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan – albeit as part of an agreement set be the previous trump administration – are emblematic of the shortcomings. At the same time, the US has remained the largest donor globally for humanitarian assistance and increased assistance Gaza and Lebanon, most notably through the pier in Gaza. The US military had also been supporting humanitarian actors in their negotiations with the Israeli military around access of humanitarian actors to Gaza and the conduct of hostilities. While it would be easy to say that this did not amount to anything – examining the counterfactual situation without this intervention is impossible and my direct contact with a humanitarian involved in this work highlighted the success of this intervention. Finally, the most recent developments of a ceasefire in Lebanon, highlight the successes that have often come too late under the Biden Administration.

The Biden Administration did succeed in doing some work to improve civilian harm mitigation, which has been implemented in the two years since being put into action.  Finally, the continued military support to Ukraine – with limits attached – and Israel – with comparably lower limits – through weapons highlight the role that Biden found himself in at the end of his term and speak for a commitment to standing alliances but falling short to do everything it could to protect civilians in Gaza and Ukraine. Bidens lifting of limits on Ukraine after the election came together with sending anti-personnel mines, a reverse of position on arms controls that wasnot widely welcomed by many in the humanitarian community.

How We Got On Our New Course.

The past week has been full of infighting amongst the democratic party trying to find the reason Vice President Harris’s loss. Economic factors and a global trend of anti-incumbent fervour have been highlighted as the chief culprits. The role of the issues highlighted above appear less important, though do carry some weight. Amongst the youth and Arab-American community, the shadow of an inability or unwillingness to address suffering in Gaza has loomed largely, at least anecdotally, in election post-mortems. The uncommitted movement seems to have cost Harris some votes in Michigan at least. Here, Trump’s positions toward Israel will hardly bring any change, rather growing fears as to the future of Northern Gaza and the firing of the Israeli Defense Minister may be reflective of a hardening of Israel positions knowing that the incoming president is unlikely to oppose such a shift.

Additionally, immigration was certainly seen as a driving issue for Republicans before the election and though there has been some evidence that voters were swayed be inflation and the economy despite Trump’s positions on immigration. Whether the positions were taken seriously or not, there will likely be, at least, a further crackdown on incoming immigrants and asylum seekers. Given the speed at which Trump attempted to enact his ‘Muslim Ban’ and his willingness to separate children from their parent who had crossed the US border illegally and cage them, there is little doubt as to his willingness to swiftly and ruthlessly act on immigration.

Where We’re Going.

As Trump assembles his cabinet and broader team, the signs have been mixed. While Marco Rubio’s selection has been greeted by many as not as bad as some had feared, other selections – particularly for Defense and Intelligence – have been seen as in line with Trump’s most extremist campaign promises. However, one can already look back to his last term to try to predict how the incoming administration will act on humanitarian issues within the context of the new global situation. Unfortunately, the picture is bleak, to say the least.

During Trump’s first term, he consistently requested proposed significantly reduced budgets for foreign assistance, including, but not limited to, humanitarian assistance. These proposed budgets were rejected by one or the other houses of congress and budgets with somewhat ‘normal’ levels of foreign assistance were approved instead and the bureaucratic administrations in USAID and the State Department were able to put them into action. The new Trump administration will potentially be acting with Republican control of both houses of congresses, a desire to gut the US bureaucratic administration and combat the ‘deep state’ that, in their view, blocked Trump’s previous policies, and representing an electorate perceived to be weary of spending abroad in the face of inflation. Each of these could, independently, give Trump cause to reduce the budget or dismantle structures in place. Combined, they could do both drastically reduce spending and capabilities of the US as a humanitarian donor. Such cuts would be a further blow to attempts to ensure stable funding to meet increasing humanitarian needs globally, particularly after cuts by other top donors, including Germany.

This financial stability of US-based humanitarian actors is further jeopardised by the recent passage of HR 9495, which would allow for the removal of tax-exempt status that non-profit organisations have if they are deemed to be supporting terrorism. Such decisions, as per the bill, could be unilaterally enacted by the Treasury Department. Giving the executive branch further power to control humanitarian work, particularly in conflict zones.

The scale of cuts on budget and personnel and the priority goals of the administration will only be known once the cabinet is assembled and the reality behind Project 2025 and its anti-administrative agenda is actually put into practice. However, as with previous republican administrations, Trump is likely to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, which would stop NGO’s receiving funding from providing abortions which often impacts other aspects of women’s healthcare. I wonder whether the inclusion of RFK Jr. in the administration will impact US support for vaccinations and global health more generally. Additionally, the withdrawal by the previous Trump administration of the US from the Paris Agreement, TPP, UNESCO, the UNHRC, and WHOcertainly calls into question future support for multilateralism and international cooperation.

As devastating of an impact as these cuts and new legislation may have, there are two further areas in which the new Trump administration could impact the humanitarian system – namely around political will and its own humanitarian impact. These two aspects are inextricably inter-connected. A Trump administration set on deporting millions of those living in the US and using the US military to do it may not only reduce global capacity to deal with rising humanitarian needs but also play a role in increasing humanitarian needs themselves. Time will only tell whether the US also reverses its work on civilian harm mitigation as well, further worsening its potential impact, however, Trump’s record of airstrikes in Syria and Yemen, amongst others, indicate there he has been willing to use force in ways that could jeopardise civilians in the past. Current conflicts in both of these countries as well as elsewhere could invite further strikes.

With the risk of the US scaling down its role as a donor, withdrawing from the global stage, and potentially contributing to humanitarian needs, the issue of political will enters the equation. The number and scale of global crises currently has strained not only the humanitarian system, but the global order more generally. For a year now, my students have been asking, ‘what is the point of international law when it constantly violated?’ These sentiments are understandable. The current administration has illustrated the danger of having world leaders unwilling to act on in accordance with their ideological commitments to human rights and international humanitarian law. Unfortunately, the incoming administration may pave the wave for further backsliding on many key norms protecting the most vulnerable globally through open criticism of such norms or direct-action contradictory to them. Is there any state that will – or even can – step up to replace the US, the top humanitarian donor, in trying to prop up the humanitarian system?

At the moment, it seems doubtful, but it leaves the door open for opportunities for new humanitarian leadership to arise and stronger multilateral support for humanitarian actors. While one should be cautious of looking too much for the silver lining in rather dire situations, a reshuffling in the humanitarian system could allow for reflection on long-standing calls for change. With cuts elsewhere, donors with more progressive policies toward issues like multi-year funding and new and emerging donors from the global south will likely have louder voices than before within the humanitarian sector.

Will Jamison Wright is a senior researcher at the IFHV at the Ruhr-Universität Bochum and the communications and administrative manager of the Network on Humanitarian Action (NOHA). Will is a graduate of the George Washington University and the NOHA master in international humanitarian action.