The 5,300 grants and programs killed in the Trump administration’s cuts to the U.S. Agency of International Development include U.S.-funded animal disease monitoring projects operated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.
A list of terminated programs sent to Congress this week and obtained by Agri-Pulse includes $250 million that went to projects housed under the FAO’s Global Health Security Program.
Among the GHS projects killed were some dedicated to monitoring and containing avian flu and New World Screwworm in Central America, monitoring avian flu outbreaks in Asia and improving the detection of new strains, and efforts to combat swine fever, according to a person familiar with the situation granted anonymity to speak frankly.
In total, more than 100 U.S.-funded FAO programs were terminated, worth around $382 million.
Also affected were programs providing agricultural assistance in the form of seeds, tools, and other inputs to food insecure communities.
"These programs supported millions of people in some of the world’s most food-insecure areas, including Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, northern Nigeria, and Chad," an FAO spokesperson said in a statement. "Beyond immediate relief, these interventions helped prevent famine, supported rural livelihoods, and reduced the risk of forced migration and radicalization."
The FAO received stop work orders for the programs in late January, which were followed up by termination orders around a month later, a person familiar with the situation said.
The stop work orders went out just days before the United States ended a temporary suspension of cattle imports from Mexico and as officials were working to implement protocols to prevent the spread of New World Screwworm to U.S. herds. Livestock trade across the southern border resumed Feb. 1 with animal inspection and treatment requirements before export.
The Agriculture Department had halted imports in November after the Mexican government detected the pest in the south of the country. USDA also unlocked emergency funding to boost sterile fly production in an effort to curb its spread.
Similarly, the U.S. continues to grapple with the fallout of avian flu. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins last month unveiled the administration’s “five-point” plan for combatting the outbreak in poultry flocks and lowering the price of U.S. eggs. The effort included $500 million for biosecurity and $400 million to increase indemnity rates, as well as an uptick in U.S. egg imports to increase supply.
The bulk of the FAO’s funding comes from voluntary contributions from countries for specific projects and for specifically designed purposes. The FAO’s Office of Strategy, Program and Budget had planned for a total 2024-2025 budget of around $4 billion, according to the FAO website. Of that $4 billion, just 26% would come from mandatory “assessed” contributions that each country has to make as part of its membership. The remaining 74% would come from voluntary contributions from members.
The total cuts to U.S.-funded programs would therefore account for almost 10% of the total planned FAO budget.
In addition to terminating some of the U.S.-funded FAO programs, the Trump administration is reevaluating its overall U.S. engagement with all UN organizations, including the FAO.
An executive order published Feb. 4 that withdrew U.S. participation in the UN Human Rights Council also directed the State Department to review U.S. involvement with all the international intergovernmental organizations. A report with recommendations on whether the U.S. should withdraw from any other organizations is due to the president in August.
Kip Tom, who served as U.S. ambassador to the FAO and UN World Food Program during the first Trump administration, told Agri-Pulse recently that a rethink of U.S. engagement with the FAO may have some merit.
“Here's an organization that's supposed to create resilience and capacity in farming systems. I'll be honest with you, I'm not seeing it,” Tom said. While he argued the U.S. should remain a member to continue to shape international food standards through its Codex Alimentarius committees, he suggested it could trim some of the voluntary contributions or divert them to other arenas, like beefing up Codex.
“Maybe it's time to scale back that voluntary [funding] and push more toward something that really makes an impact,” he said.
For more news, go to www.Agri-Pulse.com.
