U.S. Resumes Food Donations to World Food Programme After Suspension

[Georgealbert]

 

A World Food Program's flag flutters on the roof of WFP's headquaters after the WFP won the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, in Rome, Italy October 9, 2020. REUTERS/Remo Casilli/File Photo 

 

The United States has lifted its pause on food donations to the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP), allowing the resumption of crucial aid deliveries that had been left in limbo for weeks.

 

The suspension had halted the shipment of 500,000 metric tons of food, leaving millions of dollars’ worth of assistance stranded at sea or in storage. The WFP confirmed the reversal in a statement on social media, saying: “We can confirm that the recent pause concerning in-kind food assistance to WFP, purchased from U.S. farmers with Title II funds, has been rescinded. This allows for the resumption of food purchases and deliveries under existing USAID agreements.”

 

The suspension stemmed from U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to pause all foreign aid for 90 days while reviewing its alignment with his administration’s “America First” foreign policy. Despite a waiver issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to allow emergency food assistance to continue, the U.S. government still instructed the WFP to stop work on dozens of American-funded grants.

 

The move disrupted the Food for Peace Title II programme, a $2 billion initiative that forms the backbone of U.S. international food aid, jointly managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

 

The sudden halt in funding affected food aid operations in several of the world’s most vulnerable regions, including Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Haiti, and Mali.

 

Humanitarian organisations criticised the suspension, warning that the uncertainty put $489 million worth of food assistance at risk. Many aid groups were left scrambling to decide whether to continue their programmes without any financial guarantees from Washington.

 

A U.S. State Department spokesperson declined to comment on the situation.

 

Aid officials have voiced frustration at what they describe as a lack of clarity surrounding the Trump administration’s foreign aid review. Many organisations were left uncertain whether their programmes fell under the waiver or whether they risked financial losses by continuing operations.

 

Despite the resumption of food donations, experts warn that the pause has already disrupted supply chains and delayed deliveries, potentially worsening food insecurity in conflict zones and impoverished nations.

 

While the immediate crisis may have been averted, the long-term future of U.S. foreign aid remains uncertain as the administration continues its review of international assistance policies.

 

Based on a article from Reuters 11.02.2025.

 

-- 2025-02-12

 

[Tug]

Well there’s a bit of good news glad to hear it

[Eric Loh]

Reckless wrecking ball approach with no plan and made adjustments along the way when problems become evident. This is a disastrous freewheeling administration that is a recipe for disaster. Already 3 weeks of numbing chaos. 

[scottiejohn]

Typical Trump!

Order, counter order, disorder! Again and again!

[Chomper Higgot]

Somebody explained to Trump that blocking US food donations to the WFP would cut the pipe of federal funds to U.S. farmers, in predominantly Republican voting States.

 

 

 

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Somebody explained to Trump that blocking US food donations to the WFP would cut the pipe of federal funds to U.S. farmers, in predominantly Republican voting States.

 

 

 

I’m inclined to agree with you I don’t think trump cares one wit about starving people in foreign lands 

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

I’m inclined to agree with you I don’t think trump cares one wit about starving people in foreign lands 

When you can't take care of your own citizens, does it make sense to borrow money and give it away to non citizens of the USA.

 

USA citizens elect politicians in hopes that they have the USA in their best interest.

 

Let other countries do the same, take care of their own first.  Many problems can be solved, without the USA going further into debt, and inability to take care of it's own.

 

Here's food for thought ...

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

When you can't take care of your own citizens, does it make sense to borrow money and give it away to non citizens of the USA.

 

USA citizens elect politicians in hopes that they have the USA in their best interest.

 

Let other countries do the same, take care of their own first.  Many problems can be solved, without the USA going further into debt, and inability to take care of it's own.

 

Here's food for thought ...

 

 

The U.S. failure to take care of its own citizens is a political choice.

 

Tax breaks for the already rich, crumbs for the rest and distract them by telling them they being robbed to pay for foreign aid.

 

[hotsun]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The U.S. failure to take care of its own citizens is a political choice.

 

Tax breaks for the already rich, crumbs for the rest and distract them by telling them they being robbed to pay for foreign aid.

 

Not just foreign aid. We were funding terrorists

[JonnyF]

8 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

The sudden halt in funding affected food aid operations in several of the world’s most vulnerable regions, including Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, Haiti, and Mali.

 

Actually it affected the corrupt leaders of those countries buying the latest S series. 

[KhunLA]

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The U.S. failure to take care of its own citizens is a political choice.

 

Tax breaks for the already rich, crumbs for the rest and distract them by telling them they being robbed to pay for foreign aid.

 

Yet the higher income folks, as posted many times, ignored obviously, pay more than most people  in the USA.

 

Never let facts get in the way a your spin 

 

 

source: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

[Chomper Higgot]

50 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Yet the higher income folks, as posted many times, ignored obviously, pay more than most people  in the USA.

 

Never let facts get in the way a your spin 

 

 

source: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/

Well yes, that’s how progressive taxation works.

 

And back in the heyday of America’s growing middle class and growing prosperity of ordinary working Americans taxes on the rich and corporations were higher.

 

Then along came neoliberalism and trickle down economics, stripped the wealth of the middle classes and passed it up to the rich.

 

 

Try figure out which side of that equation you’re on,

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Then along came neoliberalism and trickle down economics, stripped the wealth of the middle classes and passed it up to the rich.

 

Try figure out which side of that equation you’re on,

Translated to, making a bit closer, but not even close, to a fairer tax.

 

A fair tax, would be everyone paying the same %.   Anything else, and you're just spinning. 

 

Why should people be punished / taxed more, for simply being more productive with the finances.  How is that fair ?

 

I know what sides of the equation I've been on, and both, top 5% and bottom 50%.

 

Top 5% is much better, even though I paid more taxes, in one year, than 88% of households earned in a year.  So don't tell me how fair the US tax code is.  It is anything but.

 

 

The only argument people have is ...

... "But you earned more"

... "That is correct, EARNED, and they took more"

 

Must be a new definition of 'fair' that I missed 

 

Why I left, 25 yrs ago, and don't produce any more.   I don't need it, and you ain't taking any more.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Translated to, making a bit closer, but not even close, to a fairer tax.

 

A fair tax, would be everyone paying the same %.   Anything else, and you're just spinning. 

 

Why should people be punished / taxed more, for simply being more productive with the finances.  How is that fair ?

 

I know what sides of the equation I've been on, and both, top 5% and bottom 50%.

 

Top 5% is much better, even though I paid more taxes, in one year, than 88% of households earned in a year.  So don't tell me how fair the US tax code is.  It is anything but.

 

 

The only argument people have is ...

... "But you earned more"

... "That is correct, EARNED, and they took more"

 

Must be a new definition of 'fair' that I missed 

 

Why I left, 25 yrs ago, and don't produce any more.   I don't need it, and you ain't taking any more.

“

The only argument people have is ...

... "But you earned more"

... "That is correct, EARNED, and they took more"

Must be a new definition of 'fair' that I missed ”

 

It seems you missed the definition of Strawman.

 

[candide]

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Somebody explained to Trump that blocking US food donations to the WFP would cut the pipe of federal funds to U.S. farmers, in predominantly Republican voting States.

 

 

 

Of course. USAID has always been an indirect way to discreetly subsidize the U.S. agricultural sector.

https://www.phantomecology.com/post/usaid-purchases-billions-from-american-farmers-how-subsidies-shape-agriculture-and-leave-appalachia#:~:text=The U.S. Agency for International,economies and shaping agricultural markets.

 

Here are the main recipients. I doubt food deliveries will be really stopped.

1. Minnesota

   • Key Crops: Peas, wheat, sorghum.

   • 2024 Sales: $70 million via contracts with Cargill, CHS Inc., and Sinamco 4.

   • Impact: Minnesota’s pea industry—critical for protein processing—relies on USAID for 10–20% of its export market.

2. Iowa

   • Key Crops: Corn, soybeans.

   • Role: While not a top direct recipient, Iowa’s corn and soybeans feed into USDA-USAID joint initiatives like the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (4).

3. Texas

   • Key Crops: Sorghum, cotton.

   • 2024 Sales: $1.1 billion in sorghum exports to Africa, partially funded by USAID’s Food for Peace program.

4. Kansas

   • Key Crops: Wheat, sorghum.

   • 2024 Sales: Kansas sorghum farmers supply over 20% of USAID’s African food aid shipments.

5. Nebraska

   • Key Crops: Corn, soybeans.

   • Role: A hub for USDA-USAID ethanol-linked corn purchases, bolstered by biofuel incentives.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Of course. USAID has always been an indirect way to discreetly subsidize the U.S. agricultural sector.

https://www.phantomecology.com/post/usaid-purchases-billions-from-american-farmers-how-subsidies-shape-agriculture-and-leave-appalachia#:~:text=The U.S. Agency for International,economies and shaping agricultural markets.

 

Here are the main recipients. I doubt food deliveries will be really stopped.

1. Minnesota

   • Key Crops: Peas, wheat, sorghum.

   • 2024 Sales: $70 million via contracts with Cargill, CHS Inc., and Sinamco 4.

   • Impact: Minnesota’s pea industry—critical for protein processing—relies on USAID for 10–20% of its export market.

2. Iowa

   • Key Crops: Corn, soybeans.

   • Role: While not a top direct recipient, Iowa’s corn and soybeans feed into USDA-USAID joint initiatives like the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust (4).

3. Texas

   • Key Crops: Sorghum, cotton.

   • 2024 Sales: $1.1 billion in sorghum exports to Africa, partially funded by USAID’s Food for Peace program.

4. Kansas

   • Key Crops: Wheat, sorghum.

   • 2024 Sales: Kansas sorghum farmers supply over 20% of USAID’s African food aid shipments.

5. Nebraska

   • Key Crops: Corn, soybeans.

   • Role: A hub for USDA-USAID ethanol-linked corn purchases, bolstered by biofuel incentives.

Precisely.

 

Handouts of Federal dollars to good old GOP voting States.

And they all scream ‘no socialism’.