Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
What (or who) will replace USAID?
As Washington pulls back from its decades-long role as the world’s leading aid donor, the humanitarian system is facing what David Miliband calls a “very big shock.” On GZERO World, the International Rescue Committee president and CEO tells Ian Bremmer that the US has historically been the anchor of the global aid system, contributing nearly $4 out of every $10 aid dollar. But amid the cancellation of USAID and a dramatic pullback in foreign funding, vital programs are now closing and the impacts are being felt all over the world.
Who–or what–could step in to fill the gap? Miliband says China isn’t interested in large-scale humanitarian aid, focused instead on economic development though initiatives like Belt and Road. Europe, meanwhile, is stretched thin by war in Ukraine and pandemic debt. The Gulf States and Japan are debating their role, but the scale of US funding remains unmatched. The result, Miliband argues, is “sucking sound” of money leaving the system, leaving the world’s poorest to pay the price.
“The US was the anchor of the global aid system,” Miliband explains, “When you pull an anchor in choppy waters, the boat rocks and the passengers get seasick. That’s what’s happening at the moment.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
The global refugee crisis is at breaking point
The global refugee population is at historic highs, driven by war in Ukraine, violence in Sudan, state collapse in Venezuela, Taliban rule in Afghanistan, and a worsening humanitarian disaster in Gaza. On GZERO World, David Miliband, president & CEO of the International Rescue Committee joins Ian Bremmer to discuss the refugee crisis, the rise of forcibly displaced people around the world, and the crumbling humanitarian aid system amid the cancellation of USAID. What happens when the poorest countries are left to solve the hardest problems? And who–if anyone–is stepping up to help?
Miliband says that in 20 countries in crisis, there are more than 275 million people in humanitarian need, people that depend on international aid and organizations like the IRC to survive. There have been some recent positive developments—hundreds of thousands of refugees returning to Syria after the fall of the Assad regime, the potential for progress in the Eastern DRC, new technologies improving aid delivery. Still, Miliband says the world is facing a humanitarian crisis of historic proportions and unless the international community steps up, tens of millions will suffer.
“We face a new abnormal. 10 years ago, there were 50 to 60 million internally displaced people and refugees. Now, there's 120 million,” Miliband says, “The scale of impunity, the loss of international engagement is epic.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube.Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Rethinking the refugee crisis and global aid system, with David Miliband
Listen: The number of people forced to flee their homes because of war, persecution, humanitarian disaster or political collapse topped 123 million people in 2024. That’s double what it was just 10 years ago. Yet just as the need has exploded, the global aid system is unraveling. On the GZERO World Podcast, David Miliband, president & CEO of the International Rescue Committee sits down with Ian Bremmer to discuss the growing crisis as the number of refugees continues to rise and the US, once the anchor of the global aid system, shuts down USAID and drastically pulls back foreign funding.
Miliband says we’re facing “a new abnormal,” with 275 million people facing humanitarian emergencies in 20 countries in crisis. The vast majority of displaced people are hosted in low and middle income countries, meaning the world’s poorest and most under-resourced places are shouldering a disproportionately high share of the burden. Miliband and Bremmer discuss the worsening humanitarian situation in places like Sudan and Gaza, the impact of US aid cuts, whether any nation or group of nations can fill the void, and where Miliband sees glimmers of hope amid so many intractable problems.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published
The broken system behind the refugee crisis
Who bears the cost of the world’s refugees? As wars, state collapse, and humanitarian crises from Ukraine to Sudan to Gaza drive millions from their homes, the number of forcibly displaced people around the world is at record highs. On Ian Explains, Ian Bremmer breaks down the worsening global humanitarian crisis, the broken aid system, and where refugees actually go.
Contrary to widespread opinion in wealthier countries, the vast majority are hosted by low and middle income nations. Millions of forcibly displaced people never cross an international border at all. That imbalance isn’t just unfair—it’s dangerous. What happens when the poorest countries are left to solve the hardest problems?
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Supreme Court orders release of foreign aid funds
The terse, unsigned ruling was issued by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett together with the court’s three liberal justices. It upholds an earlier order by US District Judge Amir Ali, now tasked with crafting compliance requirements for paying the money. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the dissenting justices, said he was “stunned” by the decision, arguing that it rewarded “judicial hubris” and imposed a significant financial burden on taxpayers.
What was the lawsuit about? The dispute arose from US President Donald Trump's Jan. 20 executive order imposing a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid to ensure “alignment” with his foreign policy objectives. The order prompted aid organizations to sue, alleging that the freeze exceeded presidential authority and violated federal law.
What could this mean for other lawsuits? Eurasia analyst Noah Daponte-Smith says, “The SCOTUS ruling yesterday was more of a procedural than a substantive matter. That said, this is the second time that the court has allowed lower-court injunctions against Trump’s actions to go into effect, which may be an indication of how it will rule once substantive issues reach the court.”
“It is also notable that Barrett — a Trump appointee — sided with Roberts and the three liberal justices, suggesting that a 6-3 conservative majority is by no means unified on the questions of executive authority that the DOGE cases involve.”
Supreme Court rules against Trump on foreign aid, spelling potential problems for DOGE
On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court decided against the Trump administration, refusing to halt a judge’s order to resume billions in foreign aid payments.
In an unsigned 5-4 emergency ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to uphold the decision by the Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in payments from the US Agency for International Development pledged under previous administrations.
“I am stunned,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a dissent signed by the bench’s other three conservatives.
The majority did not explain the decision. Noting that the deadline for resuming payments passed last week, it sent the case back to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to “clarify” when the Trump administration needed to comply with the order.
Dog days ahead for DOGE? USAID isn’t the only agency facing steep cuts mandated by White House adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. The various funding slashes are facing mounting legal challenges that are winding their way through lower courts. With rulings stacking up against DOGE, conservative legal scholar John Yoo complained to Fox News last week that “activist judges” in lower courts “misunderstand their proper role,” and surmised that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the Trump administration.
In a post on X, Boston University law professor Robert L. Tsai said Wednesday’s ruling represented an “important though limited brushback of DOGE and the strategy to evade constitutional constraints – though judicial battle lines are starting to be drawn.”
Why cutting USAID will hurt American foreign policy
Ian's Quick Take: Hi everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take for today on USAID, the US Agency for International Development, which is in the process of being shut down. Nearly all Washington staff have been put on leave, they're closing missions abroad, the State Department moving to evacuate all staff around the world. Why should we care? Does this matter? This agency was set up back over 50 years ago, 1961, by then President John F. Kennedy, and it was meant to coordinate the distribution of foreign aid for the United States all over the world and differentiate that from military support that was provided by the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the US isn't providing charity, that's not what foreign aid is, that it should be providing support for US national interests. And I agree that it should be providing support for US national interest, but it is important to recognize that actually when USAID was set up, it was set up in part as charity, that President Kennedy's position was that the United States had a moral obligation to support poorer people, and poorer countries around the world. They are fellow human beings, after all, and the United States has historically benefited massively from developing resources all around the world, and frequently, the people that lived in those countries didn't get very much as a consequence, and the US has benefited massively, as have other wealthy countries, from industrialization, and putting carbon into the atmosphere that now poor countries can't do because of climate change, and we're saying, "We need to transition," but the US, of course, has gotten the benefits of that historically.
You know, my view is, I'm okay with charity. I actually think that helping save lives with food and medicine for millions of people and especially babies and children. I mean, even if it did nothing for the United States directly, I would be okay with spending some of the money of American taxpayers on that, especially as opposed to say a war in Afghanistan or the latest sort of bomber program that is expensive and more than the Americans need. So, I push back on the US should never do charity argument. But leaving that aside, you don't need that argument to focus on the importance of USAID.
And I want to, before I get into the national interest side, I do want to say I am empathetic with why it is unpopular. Because at a moment when so many average Americans feel like the US government has not taken care of them, and this is why you see so much backlash against all of the illegal immigrants that have not been addressed by administrations for many years, and why there's so much backlash against the US establishment, whether it's Democrat or Republican, in saying, "What about the average working American? What about our healthcare? What about our public school system? What about things that you should care a lot more about than sending aid to brown people around the world?" Which is essentially what USAID is mostly doing. I get that. And in that regard, it's an easy target for Trump. It's a particularly easy target for Elon Musk. I would ask first, "Why tax cuts for and regulations written by billionaires in the United States before poor people and Americans?" That would be my higher priority if I was really, really angry and antagonized by how badly money is being spent in the US. But that's a different story.
The point is you don't need to make the argument of charity. It is very clear that US foreign aid supports America's economic and national security interests. It is growing markets for consumers, for American businesses and products all over the world. The US has the biggest businesses. It has the biggest market. It benefits the most from other countries around the world having more capacity to sustainably consume and engage with those businesses. America benefits in having more health security by containing disease and pandemics because those diseases and pandemics don't suddenly stop at the American border. The US benefits from aid that reduces insurgencies creating instability that leads to more illegal migration all over the world, many of whom ultimately end up in the United States. It creates more economic opportunity and safety and security in origin countries. And that is a carrot that matters. It's not just about sticks. It's a carrot for economic statecraft that gives the Americans more influence as opposed to say the Russians, or more importantly the Chinese.
Because getting rid of USAID and cutting back on all these programs creates a vacuum. And that is an opportunity for adversaries. I've already seen ministers from large African countries who have their American programs getting cut off, reaching out immediately to their counterparts, ministers in China saying, "Are you willing to send in the programs to replace the Americans that are leaving?" And China doesn't have the economic wherewithal, the Americans do, but they certainly will seize opportunities that are economically useful to them, long-term, because they have a much longer-term perspective on these things than a US administration that's gone in four years. So I worry about that.
I think that USAID has been America's principle interlocutor with civil society in developing countries. And to the extent that we care about those countries having systems that are more aligned with the values and standards that the United States has historically promoted, then you don't want to undermine that and allow the Chinese to come in, which has very little interest in civil society, indifferent to civil society. It's a source of intelligence for the United States. And we've seen that even if it's sometimes uncomfortable for the local governments who aren't necessarily in favor of that. It is true that all USAID projects are probably not going to ultimately be killed, that the State Department is going to take it over and Marco Rubio has said that, "There's a lot of corruption in USAID, and a lot of this money is misspent, and is spent badly, and breaks executive orders," and I am sure that is true, and I am sure that that corruption needs to be addressed. It wouldn't surprise me. The US is an incredibly bloated government system. But shooting first and asking questions later tends to kill innocencts. And that is of course the approach here. And the reality is, that Elon and Trump and their ability to act and be destructive is much greater than the damage control that the secretary of state can do at this moment. And the State Department just does not have the people or the infrastructure to execute on a lot of these programs once USAID is shut down.
And the message that this is really sending to allies is that the United States is an unreliable partner. You cannot count on it. That what they say to you in one administration is not going to be consistent in a second administration, in a way that is not true with other countries, most other countries, around the world. And so I continue to believe, as I did before Trump was inaugurated, that the US is going to see a lot of wins. A lot of countries are going to bend to his will because he's more powerful and he's willing to use that power directly. But that does not mean that the United States will long-term succeed in a law of the jungle approach, an approach which is all stick and no carrot, even when the stick is very, very big, but you can't wield it effectively for a long period of time. And other countries are learning that carrots are kind of smart. I mean, the Chinese originally perfected the all stick and no carrot approach and then saw that the United States was more effective in a lot of countries because they also had economic statecraft. They also had these commercial levers, and so the Chinese started saying, "Oh, we need to figure out how to deliver aid to a lot of these countries, doesn't have to be transparent, can work right with the governments, but ultimately that's going to give us more influence in these countries." And that is something that President Trump and his administration in the early weeks at least seemed to be jettisoning.
So I think this is Pennywise pound foolish. I think it is short-term beneficial to Trump and will look like a win for him and his base and long-term will undermine US power around the world and will of course make the world a less stable place. So on balance, I think this is a problem. It's not something that I think is going to go well. I would love to be proven wrong. I'll be watching it carefully and I think it's a good thing to be debating.
So that's it for me, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
A view of the USAID building in Washington, DC, on Feb. 1, 2025.
Musk says USAID is being shut down
The website for the US Agency for International Development, aka USAID, went dark without explanation Saturday following President Donald Trump’s freeze on foreign aid and a cryptic post on X by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “Watch USAID tonight,” he wrote Friday.
Democrats have been warning that Trump was planning to dismantle USAID and fold it into the State Department — a move they say he lacks the legal authority to make. Murphy called it an attempt to “steal taxpayers’ money to enrich [Trump’s] billionaire cabal,” including Tesla CEO and presidential advisor Elon Musk, who has referred to USAID’s potential dissolution as “efficiency.”
Early Monday, Musk announced on his social media site X that he and Trump were shutting down USAID. The White House has not yet responded, and it remains unclear whether Musk or Trump have the legal authority to take such a step.
The funding freeze has halted billions in US-funded humanitarian, security, and development programs around the world. Hundreds of USAID employees and contractors have been furloughed or put on paid leave, and thousands more jobs are at risk.
DOGE data dump? On Sunday, meanwhile, it was reported that the Trump administration has given Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency access to the federal payments system, which oversees the disbursement of trillions of dollars in government funds, including social security and welfare payments. The system also contains the personal data of hundreds of millions of Americans, raising concerns about potential misuse of the data.