A Complex Legacy: U.S. Global Food Security Assistance, 2008–Present – CSIS | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Analysis of U.S. Global Food Security Program Cessation and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Programmatic Review

In 2025, the United States government initiated a pause or termination of several global development programs focused on agriculture and nutrition. These initiatives, historically backed by bipartisan consensus, formed a significant part of U.S. foreign assistance aimed at global food security. The cessation of these programs presents a critical juncture, impacting both U.S. global influence and the progress of recipient nations toward key development milestones.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Attainment

The suspension of these programs has direct and significant consequences for the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to poverty, hunger, and global partnerships.

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The primary impact is a direct setback to global efforts to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The termination of funding and technical support jeopardizes progress in these core areas.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty): As agricultural development is a critical pathway out of poverty for many communities, the loss of these programs threatens the livelihoods and economic stability of vulnerable populations, hindering progress on poverty eradication.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The withdrawal of support weakens international partnerships for sustainable development. It represents a loss of U.S. leadership and collaboration with developing countries in achieving shared global food security objectives.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Nutritional programs are integral to public health. The cessation of these initiatives may negatively affect health outcomes, particularly for women and children, undermining progress toward SDG 3.

Strategic Recommendations for Future Assistance

This programmatic shift provides an opportunity for U.S. lawmakers to restructure future foreign assistance to better align with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and enhance strategic efficacy. The following recommendations are proposed for consideration:

1. Streamline Investments for SDG Impact: Future U.S. foreign assistance for global food security should be streamlined to reduce duplication of efforts and more effectively target resources toward achieving SDG 2 and its related goals.
2. Ensure Programmatic Complementarity: A comprehensive review should be undertaken to ensure that all U.S. investments in global development are complementary, creating synergistic effects that advance multiple SDGs simultaneously and maximize the return on investment.
3. Align National and Global Goals: Future strategies should explicitly link U.S. national security interests with the promotion of global stability through sustainable development, recognizing that food security is a cornerstone of peaceful and prosperous societies as envisioned by the SDGs.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

   • SDG 2: Zero Hunger: This is the most direct SDG connection. The article explicitly discusses the termination of programs that “aimed to improve global agriculture and nutrition” and focuses on “U.S. global food security efforts.” These themes are the core mission of SDG 2, which seeks to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.
   • SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article’s discussion of “U.S. government global development programs,” “U.S. foreign assistance,” and “U.S. influence globally” directly relates to SDG 17. This goal emphasizes the need for global partnerships to achieve the SDGs, including financial support, technology transfer, and capacity-building, which are all elements of the U.S. programs mentioned. The cessation of these programs represents a challenge to the partnerships for achieving global food security.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s focus, the following specific targets can be identified:

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. The article’s reference to programs supporting “global food security” and “nutrition” directly aligns with this target of ensuring people have access to adequate food.
   • Target 2.a: Increase investment, including through enhanced international cooperation, in rural infrastructure, agricultural research and extension services… to enhance agricultural productive capacity in developing countries. The article mentions “U.S. foreign assistance for global food security” and programs to “improve global agriculture,” which are forms of international cooperation and investment aimed at boosting agricultural capacity in recipient countries.
   • Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments. The article discusses the “U.S. government global development programs” and their “funding priorities.” The pause or termination of this “U.S. foreign assistance” is directly related to the fulfillment of official development assistance (ODA) commitments from a developed country to support development goals in other nations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article does not mention any explicit, quantitative indicators. However, it implies several ways progress could be measured:

   • Amount of Financial Assistance: The article’s central theme is the pausing or termination of “U.S. foreign assistance” and “funding priorities.” This implies that a key indicator for measuring commitment and progress towards Targets 2.a and 17.2 is the total official development assistance (ODA) allocated to food security and agriculture.
   • Number of Programs and Geographic Reach: The article refers to “eight of these U.S. global food security assistance programs” and illustrates their “reach around the world.” This suggests that the number of active programs and the number of “recipient countries” serve as implicit indicators of the scale and scope of the partnership efforts under SDG 17.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: csis.org