Don’t eliminate lifesaving humanitarian aid
To the editor:
The administration is currently considering a plan to end all humanitarian aid to seven African nations: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Somalia, and Zimbabwe. These programs survived the initial USAID purge precisely because they were judged to be lifesaving by the administration’s standards. An internal State Department email states that these cuts are happening because “there is no strong nexus between the humanitarian response and U.S. national interests.”
Foreign assistance is less than 1% of the federal budget, but is critical for meeting the most basic survival needs of people in danger of starving to death. A former senior State Department official, who left the administration in the fall said, “If we don’t deliver this, people die immediately.” Cutting off aid also presents serious national security risks. When humanitarian support vanishes, terrorist groups rush to fill the vacuum -distributing food to bolster their local legitimacy.
Representative Donalds and Senators Moody and Scott should ask State Department officials to provide a more detailed explanation of these potential aid cuts and clarify their impact on U.S. national interests in these countries.
Alyssa Bernhardt
Cape Coral