View the Original .pdfThe 1-Minute Brief
What: Executive Order 14169, issued on January 20, 2025, mandates a 90-day pause on all new U.S. foreign development assistance. During this period, all programs are to be reviewed for efficiency and alignment with the President's foreign policy.
Money: The order freezes new obligations and disbursements from a foreign assistance budget that was projected to be around $58.4 billion for fiscal year 2025. Court filings suggest the administration intends to cut over 90% of USAID's contracts and $60 billion in overall foreign assistance.
Your Impact: The direct impact on most Americans will be minimal. However, the order will significantly affect U.S. federal employees and contractors working on foreign aid programs, as well as the international organizations and foreign countries that receive this assistance.
Status: Issued and signed on January 20, 2025. The order is currently being implemented, facing legal challenges and causing significant disruption to U.S. aid operations globally.
What's Actually in the Bill
Executive Order 14169 directs a temporary but sweeping halt to a specific category of U.S. foreign aid to ensure it aligns with the administration's "America-centered" policies. The order requires all federal departments and agencies to pause new spending on foreign development assistance for 90 days while each program is reviewed.
Core Provisions:
- 90-Day Pause: An immediate halt on new obligations and disbursements of U.S. foreign development assistance funds.
- Program Reviews: All paused programs must be assessed for "programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy" under guidelines from the Secretary of State and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
- Continue, Modify, or Cease: Within the 90-day period, agency heads, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, must decide whether to continue, change, or terminate each program.
- Early Resumption: Programs can resume before the 90-day period ends if a review is completed and approved.
- Waiver Authority: The Secretary of State has the authority to waive the pause for specific programs. Waivers have been issued for certain types of life-saving humanitarian aid, but exclude funding for activities related to abortion, family planning, or gender ideology programs.
Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):
The order explicitly states its purpose is to address the belief that "The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values."
- It aims to stop aid programs that "destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations."
- The stated policy is that no further foreign assistance will be disbursed unless it is "fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States."
Key Facts:
Affected Sectors: International Development, Humanitarian Aid, Global Health, Democracy Promotion.
Timeline: The 90-day review period began on January 20, 2025. The State Department began suspending aid programs on January 24, 2025, and by February 7, 2025, all non-essential USAID personnel were placed on administrative leave.
Scope: The order applies globally to all U.S. foreign development assistance programs, affecting dozens of federal agencies and thousands of implementing partners, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and contractors. Military assistance is not directly affected.
The Backstory: How We Got Here
Timeline of Events:
Post-WWII & Cold War Era (1940s-1991):
The modern U.S. foreign aid system was born from the post-World War II Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe and counter Soviet influence. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy signed the Foreign Assistance Act, creating the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to centralize economic and social development efforts. Throughout the Cold War, aid was a primary tool of U.S. foreign policy, often used to support allies and contain communism.
Post-Cold War & 21st Century (1990s-2020s):
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, aid priorities shifted. The George W. Bush administration significantly increased aid, launching major initiatives like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). However, the fundamental structure, based on the 1961 act, has long been criticized as outdated and unwieldy, leading to multiple reform efforts. Foreign aid spending consistently remains less than 1% of the total federal budget, though many Americans mistakenly believe it is much higher.
Why Now? The Political Calculus:
- "America First" Foreign Policy: The executive order is a direct implementation of a foreign policy doctrine that prioritizes perceived domestic interests and questions the value of long-standing international commitments.
- Skepticism of Aid Effectiveness: There is a long-held political argument that foreign aid is often wasteful, enables corruption in recipient countries, and does not serve U.S. interests. The order's text reflects this view, claiming aid programs can be "antithetical to American values."
- Presidential Authority: The action is a decisive use of executive power to assert control over the federal bureaucracy and redirect national resources in line with the President's specific agenda, bypassing potential legislative debate.
Your Real-World Impact
The Direct Answer: This directly affects a specific group of Americans—those employed by the government or as contractors in the foreign aid sector—and the industries that support them.
What Could Change for You:
Potential Benefits:
- For those who believe current foreign aid is wasteful, this action could be seen as a fulfillment of a promise to cut federal spending and realign it with national priorities.
- Supporters argue that by trimming ineffective programs, the U.S. can ensure that the aid it does provide yields better results for both American taxpayers and recipients.
Possible Disruptions or Costs:
Short-term (First 90 Days):
- Job Loss: Thousands of U.S. government employees and contractors at USAID and other agencies have been furloughed or put on administrative leave.
- Economic Disruption: U.S.-based NGOs, universities, and contracting firms that implement aid programs face abrupt contract cancellations and financial instability, potentially leading to layoffs.
Long-term:
- Reduced Global Influence: A significant, long-term cut to development and humanitarian aid could diminish U.S. "soft power"—the ability to advance American interests through positive influence rather than force.
- National Security Concerns: Critics argue that retreating from development aid creates vacuums that may be filled by adversaries like China and Russia, and can lead to instability, conflict, and migration crises that ultimately affect U.S. security.
Who's Most Affected:
Primary Groups: U.S. government employees (especially at USAID and the State Department), U.S. contractors and NGOs in the international development sector, and the populations in developing countries who receive aid for food, health, and economic stability.
Secondary Groups: U.S. industries and farmers who supply goods for aid programs, and potentially the U.S. military, which often relies on development work to create stability in fragile regions.
Regional Impact: The top recipients of U.S. development assistance, such as Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Jordan, are most directly impacted by the funding pause.
Bottom Line: While most citizens won't feel an immediate effect, this order initiates a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy that could have significant long-term consequences for America's global standing and national security.
Where the Parties Stand
Republican Position: "Aligning Aid with American Interests"
Core Stance: Generally supportive of the executive order's goal to review and realign foreign aid, viewing it as a necessary step to eliminate waste and ensure taxpayer dollars serve U.S. interests first.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ Foreign aid needs more accountability and should be conditional on supporting U.S. foreign policy goals.
- ✓ Money spent on development abroad would be better invested in domestic priorities.
- ✗ Some may oppose a complete withdrawal from strategic regions, recognizing aid as a tool to counter adversaries and maintain influence.
Legislative Strategy: Support the executive action while potentially pushing for legislative reforms to permanently reshape and reduce foreign aid budgets.
Democratic Position: "A Reckless Abdication of Leadership"
Core Stance: Strongly opposed to the executive order, viewing it as a dangerous and destabilizing move that undermines U.S. interests, humanitarian values, and global stability.
Their Arguments:
- ✓ Foreign aid is a critical component of national security, preventing conflicts, pandemics, and refugee crises that would be far more costly to address later.
- ✓ Halting aid abruptly harms U.S. credibility and cedes influence to competitors like China and Russia.
- ✗ They argue that the order is an overreach of executive power designed to dismantle, not reform, U.S. development efforts.
Legislative Strategy: Challenge the executive order through congressional oversight, public statements, and potentially legal action. Work to protect aid funding in future appropriations battles.
Constitutional Check
The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable
Basis of Authority:
The President is acting under the authority vested by Article II of the Constitution, which grants the President broad "executive Power" and establishes them as the primary architect of U.S. foreign policy.
Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
Constitutional Implications:
[Separation of Powers]: The core constitutional tension lies between the President's authority to conduct foreign policy and Congress's "power of the purse." While the President directs foreign relations, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to appropriate funds.
[Precedent]: The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) was enacted specifically to prevent presidents from unilaterally refusing to spend money that Congress has appropriated. The ICA requires the President to notify Congress before delaying or canceling funding and allows funds to be withheld for only 45 days unless Congress approves a permanent rescission.
[Federalism]: This issue primarily concerns the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches at the federal level, not federalism (the balance between federal and state governments).
Potential Legal Challenges:
The executive order is highly vulnerable to legal challenges. Lawsuits have already been filed arguing that the action constitutes an illegal impoundment of funds in violation of the Impoundment Control Act. The argument is that the President cannot effectively cancel congressionally-approved funding programs through an executive review process without following the specific procedures laid out in the ICA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is authorized to review such actions and can sue the executive branch to compel the release of funds.
Your Action Options
TO SUPPORT THIS BILL
5-Minute Actions:
- Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121 "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support the President's review and realignment of foreign aid outlined in Executive Order 14169."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee to express support for increased oversight and alignment of foreign assistance with U.S. interests.
- Join an Organization: Look for groups that advocate for fiscal restraint and an "America First" approach to foreign policy.
TO OPPOSE THIS BILL
5-Minute Actions:
- Call Your Rep/Senators: [Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121] "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose Executive Order 14169 and work to restore funding for critical foreign assistance programs."
30-Minute Deep Dive:
- Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining the importance of foreign aid for U.S. national security and humanitarian values.
- Join an Organization: Groups like the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), which has already filed a lawsuit, or other international development and humanitarian organizations are actively opposing this order.