logo
Many Ukrainian Aid Groups Stop Work After Trump's Halt on Foreign Assistance

Many Ukrainian Aid Groups Stop Work After Trump's Halt on Foreign Assistance

New York Times28-01-2025
A week after the Trump administration abruptly ordered a sweeping halt to U.S. foreign development aid, the effect is already being felt in war-torn Ukraine. Several humanitarian organizations say they have been forced to suspend operations, including assistance to war veterans and internally displaced people.
The orders, which were issued while the Trump administration conducts a 90-day audit of foreign aid, have sent a chill through humanitarian organizations in Ukraine, which depend heavily on such assistance.
The United States, the largest single source of aid to Ukraine, has provided more than $37 billion in humanitarian aid, development assistance and direct budget support since the beginning of the war nearly three years ago through its Agency for International Development, also known as U.S.A.I.D.
Yuriy Boyechko, the founder and chief executive of Hope for Ukraine, which works with U.S.-funded Ukrainian groups to supply firewood to frontline residents, said the impact of the halt in funding would be immediate. Deliveries will stop suddenly, he said, leaving people on their own in the middle of winter.
'They're going to feel the effect of this next week,' Mr. Boyechko said in an interview. 'This is just extremely harmful because you have millions of people in frontline areas near Kherson and Kharkiv who have been living without light for a long time. For them, firewood has been the only source of heat and a way to prepare food.'
Ivona Kostyna, chairwoman of Veteran Hub, an organization that supports veterans and their families, said that the organization had already stopped two major programs: one that liaises with Ukrainian employers on employment policies for veterans, and another that provides space for veterans.
'It is on pause, but in fact for us, 90 days of pause means losing our team, our space, our clients' trust,' she said. The sudden stop in funding 'undermines the reliability of the partnership,' Ms. Kostyna said.
After Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 set off by some accounts the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, European nations shouldered most of the burden of taking in refugees who fled Ukraine. The United States, for its part, helped to limit the flow of refugees by funding humanitarian programs that assisted internally displaced people.
A U.S.A.I.D spokesperson in Washington confirmed on Tuesday to The New York Times that all programs and grants without a waiver approved by the secretary of state had been paused for 90 days, while the audit is continuing. The U.S. State Department said in a statement that the aid freeze was justified by the need to 'refocus on American national interests' and that it would no longer 'blindly dole out money with no return for the American people.'
American officials at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine requested exemptions to preserve aid for the country, according to Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, a Ukrainian lawmaker. The Financial Times first reported the request. In an interview, Mr. Yurchyshyn said discussions about granting waivers for Ukrainian assistance were continuing.
He expressed concern that programs providing emergency food aid would have to pause operations, even though they have been exempted globally from the orders. The funding 'reduces pressure on migration,' he said, as people can remain in their towns when schools and municipal services like water and natural gas operate.
The aid agency has funded water system repairs and repairs for schools damaged by Russian artillery shelling.
Continuing the aid, Mr. Yurchyshyn said, will also counter 'the narrative of totalitarian countries that democracies are unstable partners, and you can never be sure democracies will help you.'
For now, however, most aid appears to have been halted.
An email from the State Department to one group, dated Jan. 24 and viewed by The New York Times, said that 'all foreign assistance awards are immediately suspended' and that the group 'must stop all work on the program and not incur any new costs' after Jan. 24. The group was instructed to cancel as many outstanding obligations as possible.
The Trump administration's threat to indefinitely cut all aid also has some groups fearing retribution if they speak out against the freeze.
In an email seen by The Times, ACTED, a major French organization operating in Ukraine and partly funded by the United States, instructed a Ukrainian partner group to 'stop/suspend all work until further notice.' It added that the group should not 'communicate and comment publicly,' warning that 'organizations may be subject to sanctions globally.'
A manager from the Ukrainian partner group, speaking anonymously due to concerns about retaliation, said the directive would force her to lay off nearly 100 employees immediately and not pay their salaries, which are due by the end of the month.
The head of a separate Ukrainian organization, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, said it had been asked to suspend the development of new projects and rethink portfolios so that no activities related to gender or gay rights issues were listed.
Ukraine also has numerous media projects that survive on grants, allowing them to stay independent. Dozens of media organizations in Ukraine are now calling for support.
Bogdan Logvynenko, a founder at Ukrainer, which publishes articles about Ukraine in foreign languages, said he did not expect that financing from the United States would resume after the 90-day audit was completed. 'Our only chance is ourselves,' he says in a plea for public donations.
Ukrainian independent media currently receive more than by 80 percent of their funding from the United States, Mr. Logvynenko said.
Not all groups appear to have been notified that they should halt operations.
Oksana Kuiantseva, a board member at the charity foundation East SOS, said that the organization had not received any notice of suspension.
Most groups interviewed expressed growing concern. 'The situation shows how close big geopolitics can be,' said Lesyk Yakymchuk, director of Linza, a nongovernmental group.
An election in another country can halt, for example, an online learning program for children in Ukraine, he said. 'Such is the obvious dependence and influence on our small lives on this big game.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump moving closer to decision on making weed less criminal in eyes of federal government: sources
Trump moving closer to decision on making weed less criminal in eyes of federal government: sources

New York Post

time16 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Trump moving closer to decision on making weed less criminal in eyes of federal government: sources

It isn't quite the ruckus involving the Jeffrey Epstein docs, but there is a quieter, more important conflict inside Trump world over weed — namely whether the president should legalize it and just how legal it should be, The Post has learned And according to my sources, Trump is in a compromising mood. He appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. Advertisement Trump is ready, several MAGA pro-pot sources tell me, to make a decision on at least reclassifying weed as a so-called Schedule III drug, putting it on par with semi-controlled substances like anabolic steroids. Not to get too far into the proverbial weeds, but Pot Inc. wants marijuana reclassified so it's not being lumped in with hard drugs like heroin — and it's a drama these p­ages first covered in late April. That way this booming business continues to grow with access to the banking system as cultural norms continue to shift and the majority of Americans see pot as no more dangerous than booze. Tax revenues would flow into federal coffers as the industry expands. Trump appears to be moving closer to making a decision in the coming weeks to make weed something less criminal in the eyes of the federal government. AFP via Getty Images There are headwinds. Many MAGA types believe pot is leading to cultural rot. Breeding a population of stoners isn't good for the country since the pot today is far stronger than the joints Cheech & Chong rolled years ago. Advertisement Trump barely drinks and personally hates anything that dulls the senses. He's a law-and-order guy — witness his takeover of DC policing over quality-of-life issues, including the persistent smell of pot almost everywhere you walk. That said, the president seems to be leaning toward a compromise on federal legalization, including allowing for medical use based on evidence of its efficacy in severe pain relief. He's also said to be compelled by the business and the political argument of going soft on pot. He's done that before, doing his famous 180 on crypto for votes during the 2024 election and delivering with deregulation that is propelling the blockchain industry. Advertisement There are an estimated 17 million-plus Americans who use pot regularly, and Trump understands math. The pot lobby could help in key r­aces as the midterms approach. MAGA loyalist Matt Gaetz, the former Florida congressman and Trump's initial pick for attorney general, is one who believes embracing pot would further expand Trump's base among working-class people of all races, where pot u­ sage is most prevalent. 'President Trump would cement [these voters] for Republicans for 25 years by 'rescheduling' marijuana,' Gaetz said. 'Obama always wanted to do it but didn't have the balls.' Gaetz added that Biden with his 'autopen presidency' was too busy destroying the country to care. 'This is yet another opportunity for Trump to notch a generational win where Ob- ama and Joe Biden failed.' Advertisement Longtime hedge fund trader Marc Cohodes is even more adamant about legalizing marijuana. He is both an investor in Pot Inc. and a medical user after shoulder surgery. 'If he totally legalizes, Trump will totally destroy the Democratic Party,' Cohodes tells me. 'Polls show that most Americans want this legalized. Trump will turn the GOP into the people's party.' Trump's options include totally 'declassifying' pot, making it 100% legal in the eyes of federal law. He could also 'reschedule' pot as a 'Schedule III' controlled substance, along the lines of anabolic steroids and other drugs that the feds have modestly blessed for specific medical-related uses. If he does nothing, pot would r­ emain a Schedule I drug, where the federal government views it as a highly controlled substance. Up to $60 billion annually The various distinctions matter for the pot industry, which is estimated to rake in between $40 billion and $60 billion a year. While marijuana is fully legal or decriminalized in most states, without the federal government taking it off the Schedule I list it can't be 'banked.' Wall Street shies away from underwriting the stock of any company that in Pot Inc. parlance 'touches the plant.' If Wall Street can begin underwriting pot stocks, financing US-based growers, for example, Pot Inc. could grow exponentially. Still, legalization skeptics on Trump's team will have a say. New Drug Enforcement Administration chief Terry Cole is a veteran at an agency with a long anti-pot bias. Advertisement Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the head of the Department of Health and H­ uman Services, has spoken about decriminalizing weed but also how there are negative health effects from consuming the 'high-potency' stuff. Many critics say today's bud has hallucinogenic effects, and could be a gateway to more dangerous stuff like opioids. That's why Gaetz thinks Trump won't go for full legalization and allow it only for medical use. Ditto for longtime Trump political guru Roger Stone. 'I don't think he ever completely de-schedules it, which is what I would do,' Stone tells me. Advertisement Cohodes says not going all the way would be a mistake. First, banking for Pot Inc. would remain difficult if it is only re-­ scheduled. Plus, making it totally legal could help decimate a major source of income for the various drug cartels. It would be age-restricted by the government. 'By eliminating prohibition, illegal cartels get removed because legal businesses not currently banked become bankable,' Cohodes said.

Once again, Trump sends soldiers to do police officers' jobs
Once again, Trump sends soldiers to do police officers' jobs

Boston Globe

time16 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Once again, Trump sends soldiers to do police officers' jobs

Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's clear that he intends to keep sending troops into American cities. But Americans can't let that become the new normal. Advertisement There ought to be bipartisan pushback. After all, Republicans used to be the first to object to federal interference in local affairs. Indeed, it should not have to be said how dangerous this is: Federalized police takeovers of cities are hallmarks of autocracies. When leaders cannot govern by democratic means, they turn to force to bend citizens to their will. And, as is often the case in backsliding democracies, they falsely claim to be acting for people's own good. Advertisement 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs, and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore,' Trump said at His words are not backed up by data. Among other things, he cited 2023 crime statistics from the city, which did experience a post-pandemic crime surge. But since then, violent crime has plummeted in the city. Even if the district really were the dystopian hellscape Trump describes, though, it is wrong to think the military could fix it. Crime is a complicated, multifaceted problem, not something that can be solved with Humvees. Trump, though, was not deterred by facts. 'I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what that is, and placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,' Trump said. Trump's announced plan is, at least in part, of debatable legality. Because of D.C.'s unique status as the nation's capital, the president and Congress do have powers there that they lack elsewhere. Still, the law Trump cited does not allow the president to commandeer local law enforcement in Washington, as he seemed to imply. The Home Rule Act, which established D.C.'s local government, gives the president no local law enforcement powers at all, meaning he cannot direct local police to conduct patrols, detain people, or arrest them. What the law does allow is for the president to direct the local police, under Section 740, if 'special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes .' The law also caps the amount of time such emergency declaration can last to 48 hours, which can be extended to 30 days if Congress is properly notified of the action. Advertisement 'In other words,' borrow the [Washington police] for his own priorities; but he can't control how they discharge their other duties.' This is something Trump could have done, for example, on Jan. 6, 2021 during the violent siege of the US Capitol building to allow seamless coordination of local and federal law enforcement to assist Capitol Police in stemming the violence. But in that emergency, he chose not to. Something else the president has done in D.C. this week that he didn't do during the Jan. 6 attack is to mobilize the D.C. National Guard. Unlike in states, where governors direct the National Guard, the D.C. National Guard reports directly to the president, who reportedly deployed The federal government also has some powers to deploy agents from other agencies, such as the US Park Police, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE, but the law limits some of those agency's powers based on jurisdiction and subject matter. For example, ICE agents can only conduct civil immigration enforcement, they cannot conduct an arrest for suspected carjacking or any other local criminal action, and Park Police only have jurisdiction on federal land. Whether all law enforcement officials are staying within legal and constitutional lines is yet to be determined. In California, where a trial is underway to determine if the administration violated the law with its deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles, it will take months if not years for the matter to make its way through the courts. The same will be true with the latest gambit in D.C. Advertisement But in the meantime, the president and other administration officials have the The president is taking advantage of the fact that he can implement legally and constitutionally dubious actions before courts have time to vet and stop them. But leaders, including Republicans who have long called for limited government, should decry this and do what they can to stop this autocratic move. Whether it is part of a cynical play to the the GOP's base ahead of midterm elections, or part of a deeper plan, as outlined by the White House earlier this year to ' Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store