Exclusive-Jordan wins Trump aid carve-out for strategic projects and support
By Suleiman Al-Khalidi
AMMAN (Reuters) - Millions of dollars in U.S. grants for Jordan's largest water desalination project abruptly dried up when President Donald Trump announced sweeping cuts to foreign aid in January.
Within two months, support was flowing again, a result of diplomacy that has arguably put the pivotal Middle Eastern state on more solid financial footing than before the U.S. president's shock move to reshape global foreign aid in January, conversations with more than 20 sources in Jordan and the United States reveal.
Jordan - which stands behind only Ukraine, Israel and Ethiopia among the largest recipients of U.S. aid globally - has won assurances from Washington that the bulk of financing worth at least $1.45 billion annually remains intact, including military and direct budgetary support, according to Reuters conversations with the sources.
Most of the sources, including Jordanian officials, diplomats, regional security officials, U.S. officials and contractors involved in U.S. aid projects asked not to be named to discuss sensitive ongoing diplomatic discussions.
Four of them said payments resumed in March to U.S. firm CDM Smith, which USAID tasked with overseeing the $6 billion Aqaba-Amman Water Desalination and Conveyance Project, seen as key to the self-sufficiency of the arid kingdom.
The United States has for decades relied on Jordan to help achieve its goals in the Middle East, including during the Iraq War and as a partner in the fight against al Qaeda in the region. Jordan hosts U.S. forces under a treaty allowing them to deploy at its bases. The CIA works closely with Amman's intelligence services.
Although several sources said much of the $430 million annual assistance for development programs remains frozen, hitting education and health projects, Molly Hickey, a Harvard-doctoral researcher studying U.S. aid and Jordan's political landscape, said these areas are seen as less strategically important.
"Trump has protected funding considered critical to Jordan's stability, namely defense, water, and direct budget support,' said Hickey, citing contacts with U.S. officials that corroborate Reuters' findings.
A U.S. State Department spokesperson confirmed Jordan's military aid was intact, calling Jordan a strong U.S. partner with a critical role for regional security.
A decision has now been taken to continue U.S. Foreign Military Financing to all recipients, after Secretary of State Marco Rubio completed his review of foreign assistance awarded by State and USAID, the spokesperson said.
The assurances to Jordan, extended during visits by King Abdullah and Prime Minister Jafaar Hassan to Washington in recent weeks, have not previously been reported, and appear to mark a reversal of Trump's earlier warning he could target Jordan's aid if the country did not agree to take in large numbers of refugees under a proposal to turn Gaza into a beach resort.
In a private White House meeting in February, Trump assured King Abdullah that U.S. aid would not be used as leverage for political concessions, two U.S. and two Jordanian officials familiar with the matter told Reuters.
The State Department spokesperson declined to comment on "ongoing negotiations." The White House said questions on the issue should be directed to State.
Senior White House aides met in recent weeks to discuss the fate of Jordan's financing, three officials with knowledge of the situation told Reuters, concluding that the kingdom's stability was critical to U.S. national security. There was agreement in the meetings that aid should be restructured and enhanced to directly support that goal, one of the officials said.
None of the sources described specific concessions by Jordan, instead pointing to its position as a stable ally whose longstanding peace deal with neighbour Israel and deep ties to Palestinians were a bulwark against wider Middle East conflict.
"We appreciate the U.S. economic and financial support and will continue to engage in discussions that will benefit the economic sectors of both countries," Jordan's Minister of State for Communications Mohammad al Momani told Reuters in response to a question about Hassan's talks and whether Jordan's lobbying to maintain critical aid was paying off.
ISLAMISTS OUTLAWED
A financial squeeze on Jordan does not serve U.S. interests, given the kingdom's vulnerability to 'radical influences,' said one senior Jordanian official, referring to Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood as well as Iran's funding of militants in the region.
Last week, Jordan outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood, a political movement that gave rise to Hamas. Jordan accuses its members of a major sabotage plot.
The plot was announced on April 15, the same day Hassan met with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. One official told Reuters the threat of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood was discussed at the meeting. Reuters could not establish whether they discussed banning the group.
Another senior official and a regional intelligence official said economic pressure risked unrest among a population angered by the government's treaty with Israel and its pro-Western stance.
That view was bolstered by the foiled sabotage plot, the intelligence official said.
While Washington has moved to restore some World Food Program food projects to countries including Jordan, few of the USAID-led projects including those promoting political and economic reform have been brought back.
"Ensuring we have the right mix of programs to support U.S. national security and other core national interests of the United States requires an agile approach. We will continue to make changes as needed," the State Department spokesperson said.
The largest component of U.S. aid to Jordan is some $850 million in direct budget support, agreed under a seven year strategic partnership signed in 2022. Government ministers had fretted in private that this money was at risk
"Eliminating that support would significantly worsen our deficit and debt burden," former Planning Minister Wissam Rabadi said in televised remarks. "Today we face a deficit, and losing $800 million would be devastating."
However, five of the sources, including two U.S. sources, told Reuters that Washington has now assured Amman this year's support, due in December and already factored into the $18 billion national budget, would not be touched.
SHAKEN BY TRUMP
Shaken by Trump's threats, Jordan has simultaneously been locking down further assistance from other allies.
It has turned to Europe, Gulf neighbours and multilateral lenders since Trump unveiled the global aid freeze in a January 20 memo, with the State Department initially offering waivers only for military aid to Egypt and Israel.
Last week, King Abdullah visited Mohammed bin Salman, crown prince of Jordan's larger Arabian peninsula neighbour Saudi Arabia. One senior Jordanian official abreast of the discussions said Riyadh was considering a military aid package to strengthen Jordan's defense capabilities.
Ties with Saudi Arabia have been strained in recent years, and it has not previously provided military aid. The official did not give a sense of the potential scale of the package.
The Saudi government media office and Jordan's army spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Two officials and a senior Western diplomat familiar with the talks with the IMF said the government was close to finalizing a sustainability agreement with the IMF to supplement its existing $1.2 billion, four-year EFF program.
The new arrangement could unlock as much as an additional $750 million in tranches, they added. The IMF declined to comment.
Other negotiations have already yielded results: 3 billion euros over three years from the European Union, announced days after Trump's aid cuts by European Commission head Ursula von der Leyen, who cited 'geopolitical shifts;' $1.1 bln in fresh financing from the World Bank and a $690 million package from the Kuwait-based Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development, both approved in April.
Domestically, Prime Minister Hassan has been rallying corporations and business leaders to contribute to a national fund, raising over $100 million to relieve pressure on government finances.
"Jordan's economy has largely weathered the storm," said Raad Mahmoud Al Tal, the head of economics faculty at Jordan University. The government's lobbying "allowed it to retain the bulk of core aid and even get bigger donor packages beyond what was anticipated."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
12 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Traders Scour for ‘Elusive' Catalyst to Push S&P 500 to Record
For stock traders there's little to fear at the moment. Corporate America keeps churning out solid earnings. The chances of a recession aren't blaring. And President Donald Trump's tariff policy is expected to become more clear before long. So what's there to worry about?
Black America Web
14 minutes ago
- Black America Web
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.
