Oxfam America Humanitarian Policy Lead Blasts Trump Administration's 'Trade Over Aid' Plan

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-05

[00:00:03]Hi everybody. I'm Britney Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes.

[00:00:07]Joining me now is Oxfam America's humanitarian policy lead, Daryl Grisgraber. Daryl, thank you so much for joining me.

[00:00:13]Thank you for having me. So far in President Trump's term, billions of dollars in foreign aid have been cut.

[00:00:19]Just last year, USAID was in the administration's crosshairs, and ultimately the foreign aid agency was effectively dismantled. Now, new reporting indicates the Trump administration is pressing other nations to support their {quote} trade over aid push. So, to start off the conversation, what are your thoughts on the initiative?

[00:00:38]Well, trade before aid seems like an immediate step back from the humanitarian principles that we normally use to provide aid. So, humanity, neutrality, impartiality, independence.

[00:00:50]Aid is based on need in a in a nutshell, and trade over aids seems to imply that it's going to be more important to have financial investments and financial transaction with with countries in order to provide aid in return. And that is not going to necessarily prioritize people who need the aid the most.

[00:01:13]I want to talk about some of the reporting on this plan. It was reported last week Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed US diplomats to give an official call to action to other countries asking for their support for the plan because it's going to be introduced at the UN later this month.

[00:01:31]And the Washington Post found that Rubio framed the initiative as a chance for the UN system to {quote} promote America first values and create business opportunities for US companies.

[00:01:41]What do you make of that? Do you think trade over aid is putting America first?

[00:01:46]And what do you think of the whole initiative in general?

[00:01:48]Trade over aid is putting America first.

[00:01:51]I think that's sort of inherent in the name, right? It's putting um at least from the US end, it's putting America first. But I I think it's important to look at this within the context of the United Nations because the UN is not an American tool, or it's not meant to be an American tool. It is meant to serve the entire world. And particularly with regard to humanitarian issues, again, it is meant to operate on the humanitarian principles. So, the US um for it to call for other nations to also put America first, so to speak, um and to kind of change the way they operate within the UN by putting America first, it's a little bit strange because it is so blatantly not within the humanitarian principles, and it's hard to imagine that many other countries are going to fall in line with that because there is an adherence to those principles in most other parts of the world.

[00:02:42]I've had a few conversations with Oxfam America's president and CEO Abby Maxman, and she said dismantling USAID, she said at the time it was a form of cruelty that was undermining US interests. And recent studies have shown that there could be millions of preventable deaths in the next 5 years because of this slash to aid funding. Do you think trade before aid or trade over aid would reverse that at all?

[00:03:11]Oh gosh, no. Because again, trade over aid means selected investments in countries that the US feels like will provide a return. Humanitarian aid isn't provided in exchange for return other than the global good of saving people's lives and helping them to thrive. And so, to have investments in a country that are based on, say, um what mineral rights might be available in return, is not going to save people's lives and stop them from dying. Medical attention, for example, and protection, and food and water are what save people from dying. So, it's hard to understand how what looks essentially like a commercial transaction is going to save people's lives in the same way that focused humanitarian assistance could.

[00:03:55]I want to read something from the Washington Post editorial board. They wrote an op-ed on this, and it's entitled this: Trade over aid is good advice for everyone. And they wrote this: The Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid last year were overly harsh and no doubt led to serious harm. It went on to say this: But the programs that affect these improvements do not put impoverished countries on the path to sustained long-term economic growth.

[00:04:21]That can only be achieved when the people in a country are free to develop their own ideas and bring them to the global marketplace.

[00:04:28]What do you make of the way they're characterizing trade over aid?

[00:04:33]I think it's true that people have to be put on a road to self-sufficiency and do that themselves. But the whole point of foreign assistance, humanitarian assistance shifting into early recovery after a conflict or a natural disaster, shifting into longer-term development assistance, is part of how that gets done. And ideally, all of these responses and all of this assistance is locally led and locally owned, which means the people who are affected by the situation are the ones who get to decide how the money is spent and who needs it most. And within their communities, they figure out the most efficient way to use this. So, that in fact is a way uh uh a path to sustainability or self-reliance, if you prefer to call it that. And so, to say that trade over aid is a way of making that happen seems incongruous because trade is going to create business relationships that people don't necessarily have a lot of control or say in. And again, if it's for the benefit of the United States specifically, it's being done for the wrong reasons. And so, probably not going to consider the well-being and the agency in particular and the desires of the people who are affected.

[00:05:45]And this is all coming after the Council on Foreign Relations said 2025 was the worst humanitarian year on record. And historically, the United States has been the leading provider of foreign aid. But according to data from OECD, Germany took the top spot, not because they're necessarily giving more, but because everyone else is giving less.

[00:06:06]Apparently, last year also waved in the great aid recession. I mean, what do you make of this time we're in right now when it comes to humanitarian aid globally in general?

[00:06:15]Yeah, I mean, it's it's an unfortunate situation because humanitarian aid in particular has been declining for years.

[00:06:22]I mean, no one can argue that. And needs always outstrip the resources that are available. But now, with the shift of the US and a lot of the European and Western donors as well starting to focus more on defense and security rather than humanitarian aid, and in that sense, sort of stability as well, um the resources are scarcer than ever. There is less money than ever. I think you're probably aware the United Nations humanitarian appeal for this year asked for only about half of what's actually needed, and that is an indication of what they think is likely to to come in.

[00:06:56]Um and they don't want to be asking for too much. So, it's an unfortunate situation. People have already died for lack of services, and that will continue. And again, trade over aid is not going to fix that. So, we're in a really rough situation, and rather than stepping up and saying, "What can we do with this?" donors seem to be coming to be becoming more insular.

[00:07:20]The State Department spokesperson reportedly said this regarding the trade over aid push: The idea that trade and free market capitalism is the surest path to prosperity has been proven by the facts and by history.

[00:07:33]What do you think is missing from the conversation when it comes to humanitarian aid in general? And what do you think this administration's missing when it comes to that conversation?

[00:07:43]Um I I think the answer to both those questions is the same, and it's consultation with the people who are affected by the disasters and the conflicts, conversations with people who need the humanitarian assistance and what they want, what they think is most important for their recovery and for their communities. So, that has long been a lack in the humanitarian sector, but there has been a move toward that over the past decade, trying to understand the role that affected people have and give them leadership in the responses, how they're planned, how the money is spent, what decisions are made, um voices in the global forum that that coordinate this aid. And I think the US administration right now is missing that exact thing as well. Aid is not going to work as well as it can unless the people who are receiving it have a voice in how it's being used. And that is missing globally and within the US foreign affairs discourse right now.

[00:08:37]You made an interesting point earlier in this conversation that I do want to get back to because how do you think the UN countries are going to receive this?

[00:08:44]Because like you said, they're being asked by US diplomats to promote America first values.

[00:08:52]Why would a country that's not America promote America first values? Wouldn't they either promote their own country or something else first?

[00:09:01]Yeah, I mean, I I think the answer to that question is the same question, which is to say, there there's not a particular reason that they would. I mean, it's hard to imagine other than for reasons of political expediency that other countries might say, "Okay, well, we don't want to go against the US on this particular issue, so we'll fall in line with that." But being an ally is a different thing from actually pushing that ally up as the the main player as well, if you see what I mean. So, it's one thing to say we won't go against the United States. It's another thing entirely to say, "We are doing this so that the United States can get what it wants." Those are two different things, and it just doesn't make any sense that the government in another country would put that much effort into making sure that the United States is getting what it wants out of a situation.

[00:09:50]Well, what specifically are you looking out for next when this push gets introduced at the UN?

[00:09:56]Well, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but we of course will be pushing against the idea that aid is based on anything other than need. So, we will continue to push that idea both with the US government and in the United Nations and the countries that we work on. And I think beyond that, we're probably looking with peer organizations, funders, donors, and generally the whole global system to understand that humanitarian aid must be based on need and it is not okay for other countries to fall in line. And there's lots of evidence that we can produce about why it's important to have affected communities at the center of this and why aid needs to be based on those principles specifically. I I don't think that's really an argument that comes up right now. We're not going to have to prove it. It's going to be more a question of making sure that donors feel like they have the political will, frankly, to say no to what the United States is proposing.

[00:10:53]Daryl Grisgraber, I appreciate the conversation. Thank you so much for your time. You're welcome back anytime. Thank you, Brittany. Have a good afternoon.