Afrasianet - Ibrahim Alloush - Is it conceivable that the new administration in Washington would be oblivious to the role of foreign aid, such as the Marshall Plan) for the reconstruction of Western Europe after World War II, in shaping the American world?
Because any fundamental shift in the structure of the ruling establishment in the United States, and therefore in its orientations, necessarily reflects its shadows on the matrix of international relations, and therefore on the course of international politics and its outcomes, the campaign waged by the Trump administration against the deep state now, and in order to reprogram the orientations of American policies, both internally and externally, must be seriously evaluated not only by the great powers, but also by the peoples of the global South, especially Arabs and Muslims.
It was astonishing, even by reality TV standards, the "video clip" that Trump and his vice president, J.D. Vance, made publicly, when they received the pampered lover of the West, Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, in the Oval Office at the White House, with what he represented in the coup in the position on the Ukrainian issue American, and the way that coup was expressed in a humiliating way for Zelensky in front of the lenses of the screens as he rejected the ceasefire with Russia, a method that is supposed to send chills in the bodies of all American "tools" in the world from who refuse to turn the tide with Trump.
To be honest, it was Trump who was first offended when he greeted him at the door and saw him dressed casually: I came in full dressed up today, which means "kit" in our slang, that is, wearing a suit, not "dressed", as the media immediately translated it. Zelensky did not hesitate or understand Trump's comment on it.
Trump apparently considered this an underestimation in front of the public, and he could not pass it on by the standards of "reality TV", as Zelensky did not wear a uniform or traditional from his country while visiting the White House, and did not care about Trump's reference to this.
Moreover, he is the protégé of the deep state and the symbol of the globalized liberal approach in his conflict with Russia, and his insistence on escalating the war with American support has become a major contradiction point between the Trump current and the previous Biden administration, as we shall see.
Therefore, Zelensky had to be dwarfed in public, to settle a score with an approach against which Trump is waging war at home, and the issue is not only about Ukraine.
Beyond managing political affairs in the manner of "reality TV," which has become an integral part of Trump's legacy and brand since he entered politics via the "Apprentice" television program, it was particularly striking that the Trump administration cracked down on institutions such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), institutions that have long been used by America as tools for "regime change," activating color movements, and fueling polluting movements.
So what's going on here? Why is the new U.S. administration going on smashing supposedly allies like Zelensky, or some of its most important levers of global soft power like the USAid? Is it a campaign to reduce the budget deficit, cut foreign aid, and stop squandering taxpayers' money on non-Americans, as the Trump administration says, or is there something beyond politics and ideology?
Assuming there is more to it, is it conceivable that the new administration in Washington is oblivious to the role of foreign aid, such as the Marshall Plan) for the reconstruction of Western Europe after World War II, in shaping the American world?
The United States is the largest donor of foreign aid globally, and according to the latest statistics published in US official sources, the US administration provided about $ 72 billion in foreign aid in fiscal year 2023, and $ 74 billion in fiscal year 2022, excluding military equipment assistance to foreign countries. Between 2008 and 2023, after taking inflation into account, foreign aid fluctuated between $53 billion and $77.3 billion annually.
As for Trump's current resentment against Ukraine, it is due to the fact that it is the largest recipient of US foreign aid since the outbreak of the war, or more than $ 43 billion between 2021 and 2024, according to official US statistics. That's a far cry from the $300 or $350 billion Trump insists the U.S. spent on Ukraine. It's also a far cry from the $174 billion Congress allocated to Ukraine between 2022 and 2024, of which only $83 billion was actually spent.
But the Office of the Comptroller General of Operation Atlantic Resolve, which NATO has run under U.S. command to strengthen Europe's eastern front since the 2014 Crimea crisis, says on its official website, which bears the badge of the "Official website of the United States government," that Congress has allocated (and not fully spent) $183 billion to Ukraine since February 2022, when the Russian special operation was launched, in addition to $20 billion in loans.
For example, there is 1.6 billion that the US administration has put as a guarantee with the World Bank to provide more than $5 billion in loans to Ukraine and Moldova in the context of supporting Ukraine.
The difference between what is officially classified as U.S. foreign aid and what Ukraine (or the Zionist entity) actually receives is due to the fact that some of it goes as military equipment and is not registered, or to other countries to support Ukraine, or to U.S. government agencies or private companies that are somehow involved in Ukraine outside the aid budget.
The figure is much bigger than $43 billion in 3 years then, and less than the 350 Trump is talking about, but it's about hundreds of billions of dollars in total. In light of a worsening budget crisis with a deficit of $ 1.83 trillion in 2024, and with a public debt of $ 36.22 trillion on 5/2/2025, the Ukraine war becomes an open wound, especially with the inability of both parties to resolve the war permanently in their favor after 3 years, which means financial and economic bleeding Ends. Let a liberal-ruled Europe bear more of the burden of war, or stop.
This financial and economic dimension explains a large part of Trump's stance on Ukraine, and explains his insistence on a rare earth deal with Ukraine that compensates the United States for some of what it has spent, whether it uses it in its industries to compete with China and Europe itself, or sells it in global markets in a way that brings it profit and strengthens its position in international competition.
If Zelensky was expelled from the White House without signing the rare earth agreement with Trump, it means that someone will replace him at the Mariinsky Palace in Kiev soon, and that his "political age" is coming to an end.
The resentment against the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) comes from the fact that its budget of more than $40 billion annually, about $44 billion for fiscal year 2023, makes it the largest channel for distributing U.S. foreign aid, followed historically by the War Department, then the State Department, and then the Treasury Department.
Therefore, the USAid is portrayed by the "America First" movement as the biggest slit for taxpayer money to leak into the pockets of non-Americans. Therefore, it is being abused and the services of most of its employees, about 13,000 employees, are being dispensed with, 90% of its budget is cut, and its powers are curtailed, in preparation for its inclusion in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after it was an independent body.
The globalized liberal trend in the United States and Europe likes to point out, on the other hand, that in recent years US foreign aid, despite being the highest in the world, has hovered in recent years around 0.33%, or only one third of one percent, of GDP, which amounted to about $28 trillion in 2023, and more than $29 trillion in 2024, the highest output globally at current prices (not in purchasing power parity scale).
Despite this, the ratio of US foreign aid to US GDP is one of the lowest in the world, reaching less than a quarter of one percent in 2023. Since 2001, the proportion of US foreign aid from the government budget has reached between 0.7 and 1.7 percent, which is very modest and cannot be held responsible for the budget deficit, according to the anti-Trump movement.
These percentages may reflect what is officially classified as foreign aid, but they do not accurately reflect reality when it comes to specific situations such as Ukraine, as we have seen, and like the Zionist entity. Note that the Trump administration, on the eve of Zelensky's expulsion from the White House, was keen to announce large arms sales, on concessional terms, to the Zionist entity, worth 3 billion, including ammunition and bulldozers that the Biden administration had obstructed, to send a message to the Zionist lobby that what is true of Ukraine does not apply to the Zionist entity.
The issue of foreign aid is a contentious issue in American society, as a December 2024 poll indicated that 73% of Republican supporters believe it should be reduced, compared to 33% of Democratic supporters, 53% of independents, and the general average of 52% sees it as necessary.
This does not mean, of course, that those who did not vote for a reduction want to increase it, as the other option is to keep it the same, 41% on average, 24% among supporters of the Democratic Party, and 56% among Republican supporters.
Those who want to increase it are a small minority, on average, at 7%, and 10% among Democratic Party supporters at its maximum.
From the perspective of a populist figure like President Trump, this means that the public, especially his partisan constituency, is "so wanted," and that a crackdown on foreign aid will win him votes among the general voter, or the average American, that strengthens his political position.
The media associated with the deep state also claim that Trump's onslaught on foreign aid has no electoral consequences, because its recipients are not American voters, such as recipients of social security programs and the like, and therefore represent a weak side of government spending politically, through which it is easy for the Trump movement to attack government spending.
But this is not accurate, in the case of Ukraine's aid, as in the case of the US Agency for International Development, Trump's attack on them takes a pounce on the ability of the deep state elites to make policies away from internal and media censorship, especially the promotion of neoliberalism and its social values opposed by the conservative current, religious and non-religious, which brought Trump to the presidency in a sweeping victory.
The story is not only financial, but also about opposing the political program and neoliberal ideology that governs the way that aid is spent, from gay stories to the environment to others, hence Trump wrote in the executive order that suspended foreign aid for 90 days that U.S. foreign aid organizations "are inconsistent with American interests and, in many cases, contrary to American values."
What is meant, of course, is the values of the conservative movement, while American interests mean the ability of the deep state elites to make foreign policy away from internal censorship, and contrary to the directions of the new administration.
It is not true, by the way, that Trump did not target programs that benefit millions of American voters, as the media recently circulated reports that the Social Security Administration is preparing to lay off 7,000 employees, as part of Trump's program to reduce government expenditures, and it is expected that half of the 60,000 Social Security employees will be laid off, and this will necessarily affect the ability of the Social Security to provide services.
Tens of thousands of staff are being laid off from the Pentagon, starting with a decision to cut two thousand new jobs. This has been measured for many government departments.
So there is a real war going on in the United States, and the Trump administration is not a repeat of the traditional succession of Republican and Democratic presidents in the United States. There is a sharp political conflict on the lines of ideology and culture that may blow up the United States from within, as I mentioned in more than one article before, and this conflict is a reflection, in itself, of a structural crisis that afflicted the United States economically after the international financial crisis in 2008, and externally in exchange for the rising powers, and the Trump project is nothing but an attempt to lift the United States out of that crisis by returning to the "golden past", will it succeed?