Explaining Democrats’ Request to Restore Foreign Aid – FactCheck.org

Report on Foreign Aid Funding Dispute and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

Executive Summary

A political dispute arose during a U.S. government shutdown concerning a Democratic proposal to restore approximately $5 billion in foreign aid funding. This report analyzes the conflicting claims and reframes the debate within the context of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), highlighting how the contested funds align with key global development targets.

Analysis of the Funding Proposal

Democratic Initiative to Restore Foreign Aid

The core of the issue was a legislative proposal by Democratic lawmakers aimed at restoring foreign assistance funds. Key aspects of this proposal include:

• The restoration of nearly $5 billion in unobligated foreign aid funds that the Trump administration had allowed to expire via a “pocket rescission.”
• The proposal did not specify which international projects should receive the funds, instead allocating the sum to general State Department and foreign aid accounts.
• This action supports the framework of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, which emphasizes the importance of financial resources and international cooperation to support the achievement of all SDGs.

Republican Counter-Claims and Linkage to Specific Projects

Republican lawmakers characterized the proposal as a demand for wasteful spending, citing specific international projects. These projects, while not explicitly named in the Democratic bill, directly correspond to several Sustainable Development Goals:

1. Climate Resilience in Honduras ($24.6 million): This initiative aligns with SDG 13: Climate Action, which calls for urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts by strengthening resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards.
2. Civic Engagement in Zimbabwe ($13.4 million): This funding supports SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.
3. LGBTQI+ Democracy Grants in the Western Balkans ($3.9 million): This aligns with SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 5: Gender Equality by promoting inclusion and protecting the rights of marginalized groups, which is a core tenet of building inclusive societies under SDG 16.
4. Desert Locust Risk Reduction in the Horn of Africa ($2.9 million): This directly addresses SDG 2: Zero Hunger by protecting food sources and promoting sustainable agriculture, and SDG 15: Life on Land by combating desertification and biodiversity loss.
5. Organizing for Feminist Democratic Principles in Africa ($2 million): This initiative is central to SDG 5: Gender Equality, which seeks to ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership, and reinforces the principles of inclusive governance under SDG 16.

Context of the Disputed Funds

Origin in Presidential Rescission Request

The specific projects cited by Republicans were not part of the Democratic funding proposal. Instead, they were used as examples by the Trump administration in its official rescission request to Congress. The administration’s justification for cancelling the funds was to eliminate what it termed “wasteful” spending. The projects were highlighted as examples of expenditures from broader accounts, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Development Assistance account, which is designed to fund programs that promote resilient and sustainable societies, directly contributing to multiple SDGs.

Implications for SDG Implementation

The Democratic proposal sought to make the nearly $5 billion available for the subsequent fiscal year, with the executive branch retaining the authority to decide which specific programs would be funded under the broad purposes set by Congress. This underscores a critical point in development funding:

• The allocation of funds to general accounts like Development Assistance provides the flexibility needed to address emerging global challenges and support a wide range of SDG-related initiatives.
• The controversy illustrates the political challenges in securing funding for international development, even when the targeted programs directly support globally agreed-upon objectives like climate action (SDG 13), food security (SDG 2), and institutional strength (SDG 16).
• Ultimately, the debate was not over funding these specific projects but over the restoration of a significant pool of resources dedicated to foreign assistance, a key component of the global partnership for sustainable development (SDG 17).

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

The article discusses a political debate over restoring funding for foreign aid accounts. While the Democratic proposal did not specify projects, the Republican criticism cited several examples of past projects funded from these accounts. These examples connect directly to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: This goal is addressed through the mention of funding for “desert locust risk reduction in the Horn of Africa.” Locust swarms are a major threat to food security and agricultural livelihoods, directly impacting the availability of food.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The goal of achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls is relevant to the project described as “$2 million for ‘organizing for feminist democratic principles in Africa.’” This type of initiative aims to increase women’s participation in political processes and advocate for their rights.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: This goal is connected to the mention of “$3.9 million for LGBTQI+ democracy grants in the Western Balkans.” Such grants aim to promote the social and political inclusion of marginalized groups, which is a core objective of SDG 10.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: This goal is directly referenced by the project example of “$24.6 million of your hard-earned dollars as a taxpayer for climate resilience in Honduras.” Building resilience to climate-related hazards is a key component of taking urgent action to combat climate change.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This goal is addressed by multiple examples cited in the article. Funding for “civic engagement in Zimbabwe” and “LGBTQI+ democracy grants in the Western Balkans” both contribute to building more inclusive, participatory, and representative institutions, which is central to SDG 16.

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

Based on the specific projects mentioned as examples of foreign aid spending, the following SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 2.4 (under SDG 2): “By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices… that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters…” The project for “desert locust risk reduction in the Horn of Africa” directly supports this target by aiming to protect agricultural systems from a specific type of disaster (pest infestation), thereby making them more resilient.
2. Target 5.5 (under SDG 5): “Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.” The initiative for “organizing for feminist democratic principles in Africa” is explicitly aimed at increasing women’s involvement and influence in democratic and political life, aligning perfectly with this target.
3. Target 10.2 (under SDG 10): “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The “LGBTQI+ democracy grants in the Western Balkans” directly address this target by supporting the political inclusion and democratic participation of the LGBTQI+ community, a group often facing exclusion.
4. Target 13.1 (under SDG 13): “Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries.” The project to spend “$24.6 million to build climate resilience in Honduras” is a direct implementation of this target, focusing on enhancing a country’s ability to cope with the impacts of climate change.
5. Target 16.7 (under SDG 16): “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” The funding for “civic engagement in Zimbabwe” and “LGBTQI+ democracy grants” both contribute to this target by fostering broader public participation in governance and ensuring that decision-making processes are more inclusive of all segments of society.

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 official SDG indicators used for formal monitoring. However, it provides information that can be interpreted as implied or proxy indicators of commitment and action towards the identified targets. These are primarily financial indicators.

• Financial Flows: The specific dollar amounts cited by House Speaker Mike Johnson serve as indicators of financial resources allocated to programs that support the SDGs. For example:
  • $24.6 million for climate resilience in Honduras (Indicator for Target 13.1).
  • $13.4 million for civic engagement in Zimbabwe (Indicator for Target 16.7).
  • $3.9 million for LGBTQI+ democracy grants (Indicator for Targets 10.2 and 16.7).
  • $2.9 million for desert locust risk reduction (Indicator for Target 2.4).
  • $2 million for organizing for feminist democratic principles (Indicator for Target 5.5).
• Existence of Policies and Programs: The very existence of these funded projects—”climate resilience,” “civic engagement,” “democracy grants,” etc.—can be seen as a qualitative indicator. It shows that policies and operational programs are in place to address the issues outlined in the SDG targets, even if the article’s context is a dispute over their funding. The Democratic proposal to restore the ~$5 billion in foreign aid funding can be seen as an indicator of a policy position to continue supporting such international development efforts.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: factcheck.org