Feed aggregator

Global development policy is a particularly revealing field in which the Trump administration combines crude transactionalism with a high level of ideological commitment, namely an authoritarian libertarianism oriented toward elite interests. This is coupled with, at times, a chaotic absence of tactical or strategic coherence. With Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a significant phase in international affairs, including global development policy, began. 
This policy brief traces the evolution of the US approach to development cooperation and exposes how Trump’s approach represents an overtly aggressive assault, delivering a high voltage shockwave to global sustainable development policy, undermining multilateral norms, institutional commitments and long-standing principles of international solidarity. The United States (US) has played a decisive role in the conception and evolution of global development policy since the mid-20th century. From the establishment of the post-Second World War order onward, the US shaped the normative, political and organisational foundations of development cooperation, often setting agendas, defining standards, and providing leadership and personnel for key multilateral institutions. Early reconstruction efforts such as the Marshall Plan and the establishment of the World Bank embedded development within a broader framework of power politics, positioning aid as both a tool of reconstruction and geopolitical influence. Since January 2025, US development cooperation has undergone a dramatic rupture. The administration rapidly withdrew from multilateral institutions, cut budgets, and de facto dissolved USAID, transferring residual functions to the State Department. This shift was accompanied by conspiracy narratives and an explicit rejection of multilateral norms, marking a sharp departure from previous Republican and Democratic approaches alike. The brief conceptualises this shift as the emergence of a “New Washington Dissensus”: a model of transactional, nationalist development cooperation that treats aid as an instrument of power rather than a global public good. Under this paradigm, development engagement is ideologically conditional, hostile to climate and equity agendas, oriented toward migration control, and explicitly transactional. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (December 2025) is consistent with this in the sense that it frames an “America First” approach that narrows US priorities to “core, vital national interests” and places strong emphasis on Western Hemisphere pre-eminence via a stated “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. For global development, foreign assistance and development finance are thus instruments of strategic competition and commercial diplomacy. US agencies are mobilised to back US commercial positioning. The consequences are dramatic and systemic. The US retreat has destabilised the global development architecture and intensified geopolitical fragmentation. For many countries in the Global South, this represents a watershed moment, creating both new room for manoeuvre and new dependencies as states pursue multi-alignment strategies amid intensifying great-power rivalry. At the same time, humanitarian impacts are severe. Overall, the brief concludes that development policy has entered a new phase, which is narrower, more instrumental and overtly geopolitical, and is reshaping not only US engagement but the future of global development policy itself. 

Global development policy is a particularly revealing field in which the Trump administration combines crude transactionalism with a high level of ideological commitment, namely an authoritarian libertarianism oriented toward elite interests. This is coupled with, at times, a chaotic absence of tactical or strategic coherence. With Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025, a significant phase in international affairs, including global development policy, began. 
This policy brief traces the evolution of the US approach to development cooperation and exposes how Trump’s approach represents an overtly aggressive assault, delivering a high voltage shockwave to global sustainable development policy, undermining multilateral norms, institutional commitments and long-standing principles of international solidarity. The United States (US) has played a decisive role in the conception and evolution of global development policy since the mid-20th century. From the establishment of the post-Second World War order onward, the US shaped the normative, political and organisational foundations of development cooperation, often setting agendas, defining standards, and providing leadership and personnel for key multilateral institutions. Early reconstruction efforts such as the Marshall Plan and the establishment of the World Bank embedded development within a broader framework of power politics, positioning aid as both a tool of reconstruction and geopolitical influence. Since January 2025, US development cooperation has undergone a dramatic rupture. The administration rapidly withdrew from multilateral institutions, cut budgets, and de facto dissolved USAID, transferring residual functions to the State Department. This shift was accompanied by conspiracy narratives and an explicit rejection of multilateral norms, marking a sharp departure from previous Republican and Democratic approaches alike. The brief conceptualises this shift as the emergence of a “New Washington Dissensus”: a model of transactional, nationalist development cooperation that treats aid as an instrument of power rather than a global public good. Under this paradigm, development engagement is ideologically conditional, hostile to climate and equity agendas, oriented toward migration control, and explicitly transactional. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (December 2025) is consistent with this in the sense that it frames an “America First” approach that narrows US priorities to “core, vital national interests” and places strong emphasis on Western Hemisphere pre-eminence via a stated “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. For global development, foreign assistance and development finance are thus instruments of strategic competition and commercial diplomacy. US agencies are mobilised to back US commercial positioning. The consequences are dramatic and systemic. The US retreat has destabilised the global development architecture and intensified geopolitical fragmentation. For many countries in the Global South, this represents a watershed moment, creating both new room for manoeuvre and new dependencies as states pursue multi-alignment strategies amid intensifying great-power rivalry. At the same time, humanitarian impacts are severe. Overall, the brief concludes that development policy has entered a new phase, which is narrower, more instrumental and overtly geopolitical, and is reshaping not only US engagement but the future of global development policy itself. 

REPORT on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2025
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Francisco Assis

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

REPORT on human rights and democracy in the world and the European Union’s policy on the matter – annual report 2025
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Francisco Assis

Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Nach dem Sturz des venezolanischen Präsidenten hält Europa sich auffallend zurück – aus Sorge vor Trumps Reaktionen. Doch die US-Machtpolitik rückt näher: Auch Grönland gerät ins Visier. Wie kann Europa als Partner der USA seine Interessen wahren?

Written by Anna Flynn.

The European Parliament is fully committed to ensuring an ambitious European Union budget that meets the Union’s many challenges in the years to come. The European Commission presented its proposals for the 2028-2034 multiannual financial framework (MFF) on 16 July 2025. The Commission proposes a budget amounting to a total of almost €1.8 trillion in commitments over seven years (in constant 2025 prices). The MFF constitutes the EU’s long-term budgetary plan, setting a maximum level of spending (‘ceilings’) for each major category of expenditure (‘heading’) in accordance with Article 312 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

The proposed 2028-2034 budget corresponds to 1.26 % of the EU’s GNI. This includes 0.11 % of EU gross national income (GNI) for the repayment of the debt created by Next Generation EU (NGEU) grants. Excluding the NGEU repayment, the proposed post-2027 MFF reflects, in nominal terms, an increase of €367.2 billion (+29 %). However, in real terms, the increase is only 0.02 percentage points of GNI.

The national and regional partnership plans (NRPPs) proposed by the European Commission have proven particularly controversial throughout the European Parliament. They are seen as a risk of ‘renationalising’ the EU budget, as each Member State would agree their own plan with the Commission, within the constraints of allocated funding that is conditional on meeting EU priorities This raises questions about Parliament’s capacity for oversight and scrutiny. Moreover, the NRPPs merge many funds that were previously separate, such as the common agricultural policy, cohesion policy, and the common fisheries policy. Parliament’s four pro-European groups (S&D, Greens/EFA, Renew Europe, and the EPP) threatened to reject the Commission’s draft regulation on the NRPPs if it does not substantially amend its proposal.

On 9 November 2025, the Commission proposed some possible reforms to the NRPPs, such as the introduction of a 10 % spending target for agriculture, and a strengthened role for regional authorities in decision-making. However, these revisions do not address all of Parliament’s concerns. Parliament’s Committee on Budgets (BUDG) continues its work on the interim report on the MFF proposals, with opinions awaited from many of the standing committees before the BUDG report goes to plenary in May 2026.

An overview of the main components of the proposed 2028-2034 MFF and an initial comparison with the 2021-2027 budget framework illustrates the Commission’s proposed division of €1.763 trillion in commitments, which Parliament’s BUDG committee finds lacks ambition.

Academia, think tanks, other EU institutions and bodies, and a variety of stakeholders are publishing a wealth of analysis and commentary on the proposed 2028-2034 MFF as it proceeds through negotiations (see our monthly digest).

Links to EPRS publications:

• ERDF – Cohesion Fund and conditions for EU support to regional policy
• Background information on the post-2027 MFF – December 2025
• Regulation on the common agricultural policy for the period 2028 to 2034
• EU budget 2028-2034: Overview of the Commission’s proposal

Other links

• The European Parliament rejects the National and Regional Partnership Plans proposal as it stands and demands an amended proposal to start negotiations (30 October 2025)
• MEPS brand von der Leyen’s EU budget ‘re-nationalisation’ (9 September 2025)

La Turquie a livré au Kosovo des systèmes de missiles antichars de moyenne portée, permettant au petit pays des Balkans de poursuivre ses efforts pour constituer une véritable armée. Ankara cherche aussi à renforcer sa présence dans les Balkans.

- Le fil de l'Info / Kosovo, Défense, police et justice, Relations régionales, Turquie, Courrier des Balkans, dialogue Kosovo Serbie

Trump, Venezuela, and a century-old vision of American power.

How to protect the vulnerable American home front.

PM Anutin Charnvirakul's Bhumjaithai party is likely to be the main beneficiary of the polls, which will take place against a backdrop of ongoing border tensions with Cambodia.

Declassified British Intelligence documents reveal that in the 1960s, the Nepal government decided to offer support to the Naga separatists’ delegation at the U.N.

The Attorney General's Chambers said that it was dropping the case against UMNO's Ahmad Zahid Hamidi in the “the interests of justice."

The 12th National Congress saw a partial generational transition from the revolutionary old guard to a crop of younger technocrats.

An ex-air force pilot explains how he carried out an undercover mission to fly Siad Barre's body home for burial.

Ce vendredi, le Sénégal affronte le Mali en quarts de finale de la Coupe d’Afrique des nations. Favoris de la compétition, les Lions de la Teranga défient des Aigles maliens solides et ambitieux. Les deux équipes ne se sont affrontées qu’une seule fois en phase finale de la CAN, en 2004, pour un match nul 1-1 en phase de groupes.

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America, addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s eightieth session in 2025. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider.

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 8 2026 (IPS)

President Donald Trump’s executive order to stop United States support for 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations (UN) groups, has faced strong opposition from these organizations, the global community, humanitarian experts, and climate advocates, who are concerned about the negative effects on global cooperation, sustainable development, and international peace and security.

This executive order follows earlier withdrawals from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The United States has recently reduced its funding for foreign aid organizations.

The majority of the affected bodies in this executive order are organizations that center around issues in climate change, labor, peacekeeping, migration, and civic space conditions. In a statement from the U.S. Department of State, it is confirmed that Trump’s review of these organizations found them to be “wasteful, ineffective, and harmful.”

The executive order primarily affects organizations that address climate change, labor rights, peacekeeping, migration, and civic space conditions. In a statement, the department described the organizations, calling them vehicles for “progressive ideologies” funded by American taxpayers and misaligned with United States’ national interests.

“The Trump Administration has found these institutions to be redundant in their scope, mismanaged, unnecessary, wasteful, poorly run, captured by the interests of actors advancing their agendas contrary to our own, or a threat to our nation’s sovereignty, freedoms, and general prosperity,” said United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “President Trump is clear: It is no longer acceptable to be sending these institutions the blood, sweat, and treasure of the American people, with little to nothing to show for it. The days of billions of dollars in taxpayer money flowing to foreign interests at the expense of our people are over.”

The order instructs all executive departments and agencies to begin implementing the withdrawals immediately. For the affected UN agencies, this entails ending United States participation and halting funding. Rubio also confirmed that the review of additional international organizations is still underway.

Humanitarian experts and spokespersons for many of the affected entities have voiced alarm and condemnation with President Trump’s order, warning of severe consequences for climate action, human rights, peacebuilding efforts, multilateral governance, and global crisis-response systems—particularly at a time of mounting international instability.

“Today, we are witnessing a complete shift from global cooperation towards transactional relations,” said Yamide Dagnet, Senior International Vice President at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

“It is becoming less about shared principles, rule of law, and solidarity, thereby risking more global instability. By choosing to run away from addressing some of the biggest environmental, economic, health, and security threats on the planet, the United States of America stands to lose a lot. With diminishing credibility and competitiveness in the industries of the future, the United States will be missing out on job creation and innovation, ceding scientific and technological leadership to other countries,” Dagnet said.

She called on world leaders to commit to multilateralism.

“The world is bigger than the United States—and so are the solutions to our problems, which require global cooperation more than ever, including among states, provinces, and cities globally. This is the moment when world leaders need to resolutely commit to multilateral collaboration if we’re going to overcome these global threats to ensure a safe and sustainable future for all.”

Many have also criticized the United States’ à la carte approach to meeting its international obligations, only supporting the operations and agencies that align with President Trump’s priorities.

“I think what we’re seeing is the crystallization of the United States approach to multilateralism, which is ‘my way or the highway,’” said Daniel Forti, the head of UN affairs at the International Crisis Group. “It’s a very clear vision of wanting international cooperation on Washington’s own terms.”

The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) said it regretted “the deeply disappointing news of the United States’ intention to withdraw its participation in IPBES, along with more than 60 other international organizations and bodies.”

Dr. David Obura, Chair of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), said the U.S. was a founding member and “scientists, policymakers and stakeholders—including Indigenous Peoples and local communities—from the United States have been among the most engaged contributors to the work of IPBES since its establishment in 2012, making valuable contributions to objective science-based assessments of the state of the planet for people and nature.”

Apart from their contributions to IPBES, “decision-makers in the United States—at all levels and in all spheres of society—have also been among the most prolific users of the work produced by IPBES to help better inform policy, regulations, investments and future research.”

Obura thanked the United States for their contribution but noted that the withdrawal would have a massive impact on IPBES and the planet.

“Unfortunately, we cannot withdraw from the fact that more than 1 million species of plants and animals face extinction. Nor can we change the fact that the global economy is losing as much as USD 25 trillion per year in environmental impacts, or restore the missed opportunities of not acting now to generate more than USD 10 trillion in business opportunity value and 395 million jobs by 2030.”

Historically, the United States has been the largest financial contributor to the UN, providing approximately 22 percent of the organization’s regular budget and roughly 28 percent of all peacekeeping funds.

The withdrawal of United States support from 31 UN bodies is expected to trigger substantial budget shortfalls, cutbacks in humanitarian staffing, and the loss of critical technical expertise supplied by its personnel. These setbacks are likely to hinder progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reduce food assistance and medical services for people in protracted crises, and embolden authoritarian governments to resist humanitarian oversight and intervention.

“The US decision to disengage from dozens of United Nations programs and agencies, along with other international bodies, is just President Trump’s latest assault on human rights protections and the global rule of law,” said Louis Charbonneau, UN director at Human Rights Watch (HRW).

“Whether withdrawing from the Human Rights Council or defunding the UN Population Fund, which helps millions of women and girls around the world, this administration has been trying to destroy the very same human rights institutions that the US helped build over the last 80 years. UN member countries should resist the US campaign to demolish tools they use to uphold human rights and ensure that vital UN programs have the funding and political support they need.”

At a press briefing at the UN Headquarters, Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General António Guterres, informed reporters of the UN’s reaction to the United States withdrawal, emphasizing that the UN remains committed to assisting people in need regardless of United States participation

“As we have consistently underscored, assessed contributions to the United Nations regular budget and peacekeeping budget, as approved by the General Assembly, are a legal obligation under the UN Charter for all Member States, including the United States,” said Dujarric.

“All United Nations entities will go on with the implementation of their mandates as given by Member States. The United Nations has a responsibility to deliver for those who depend on us.  We will continue to carry out our mandates with determination.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Khalid’s case is a stark example of how the Modi government weaponizes anti-terror laws to indefinitely silence Muslim voices and crush dissent.

Juridiction suprême du contentieux administratif, l'institution du Palais-Royal a pour mission de veiller au respect par l'État des droits et libertés des citoyens. Mais, intimement liée à l'exécutif, elle tend à faire siennes les priorités sécuritaires du pouvoir politique. / France, Droit, (…) / France, Droit, État, Terrorisme, Justice

For the second time in a month, Uzbek authorities have restricted hours at methane filling stations due to a drop in gas pipeline pressure.

Northrop Grumman will integrate its uncrewed and autonomous technologies onto Kratos’ Valkyrie for the USMC’s MUX TACAIR Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. Northrop Grumman and Kratos announced that they will work together on the U.S. Marine Corps’ Marine Air-Ground Task Force Uncrewed Expeditionary Tactical Aircraft (MUX TACAIR) Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program. The two have been […]