Report on US Senate Funding Rescission and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Legislative Action

The United States Senate has passed a rescissions bill proposing a $9 billion reduction in previously allocated funds. The legislation, approved by a 51-48 vote, targets funding for foreign assistance and public media. The bill now proceeds to the House of Representatives for consideration.

Affected Programs and Alignment with Global Development

The proposed funding cuts are projected to have a significant negative impact on several key areas of international development and cooperation, directly threatening progress on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the fiscal impact on the national debt is considered minimal, the programmatic consequences are severe. Key areas at risk include:

• Global Health Initiatives
• Emergency Food and Shelter Assistance
• International Peacekeeping Operations
• Economic Development Programs
• Public Access to Information via Public Broadcasting

Analysis of Impact on Specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The rescission of these funds directly contravenes the objectives of numerous SDGs:

1. SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Cuts to emergency food and shelter assistance jeopardize critical humanitarian aid, undermining efforts to eradicate extreme poverty and end hunger for vulnerable populations globally.
2. SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Reductions in global health funding represent a direct setback to achieving universal health coverage and combating epidemics. These funds are vital for programs that support maternal health, fight infectious diseases, and strengthen health systems in developing nations.
3. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) & SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The elimination of funding for economic development programs hinders the capacity of partner countries to foster sustainable economic growth, create decent work, and reduce inequalities both within and among countries.
4. SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The bill impacts this goal on two fronts. Firstly, cuts to peacekeeping funds weaken international efforts to resolve conflict and build peaceful, inclusive societies. Secondly, defunding public broadcasters undermines SDG Target 16.10, which aims to ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.
5. SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The overall reduction in foreign aid represents a retreat from the global partnerships essential for achieving the 2030 Agenda. It weakens the United States’ role in international cooperation and resource mobilization for sustainable development.

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

The article discusses proposed funding cuts to foreign aid and public media, which directly and indirectly connect to several Sustainable Development Goals. The issues highlighted touch upon fundamental aspects of human well-being, international cooperation, and institutional stability.

• SDG 1: No Poverty – The cuts to “economic development” and “shelter assistance” programs directly threaten efforts to eradicate poverty.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger – The mention of cuts to “emergency food… assistance” directly relates to the goal of ending hunger and ensuring food security.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being – The article explicitly states that funding for “global health” programs is at risk, which is the core focus of this SDG.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth – The reduction in funding for “economic development” programs would undermine efforts to promote sustained and inclusive economic growth in developing nations.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions – This goal is relevant in two ways: the cuts to “peacekeeping” funding directly impact efforts to promote peaceful societies, and the cuts to “public broadcasters” affect public access to information, a key component of accountable institutions.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals – The article’s central theme of cutting “foreign aid” funding is a direct setback to the global partnerships required to achieve all other SDGs.

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

Based on the types of programs mentioned for funding cuts, several specific SDG targets can be identified as being negatively impacted.

1. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services. The cuts to “shelter assistance” and “economic development” directly undermine access to these resources and services.

2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round. Cutting “emergency food… assistance” directly jeopardizes this target.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.c: Substantially increase health financing and the recruitment, development, training and retention of the health workforce in developing countries. The clawback of funds for “global health” is the opposite of increasing health financing.

4. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.a: Increase Aid for Trade support for developing countries. The cuts to “economic development” funding directly contradict this target, which relies on foreign aid.

5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. Funding for “peacekeeping” is a primary mechanism for achieving this target.
   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms. Cuts to “public broadcasters” can limit public access to information, which is crucial for strong and transparent institutions.

6. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments. The article discusses a rescission of “$9 billion in already-approved funding for foreign aid,” which is a direct failure to meet this target.

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

While the article does not cite specific SDG indicators, it provides financial data that directly corresponds to indicators used to measure progress, particularly for SDG 17.

• Directly Mentioned Indicator:

  The article mentions a specific financial figure: “$9 billion in already-approved funding for foreign aid.” This figure is a direct input for measuring progress on financial commitments.

  • This relates to Indicator 17.2.1: Net official development assistance, total and to least developed countries, as a proportion of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee donors’ gross national income (GNI). The $9 billion cut is a direct reduction in the numerator of this indicator for the United States.

• Implied Indicators:

  By mentioning the programmatic areas being cut, the article implies that the indicators used to measure success in those areas will be negatively affected. While no data is given, the connection is clear:

  • Cuts to “global health” imply negative movement on indicators like 3.3.1 (Number of new HIV infections per 1,000 uninfected population), 3.3.2 (Tuberculosis incidence per 100,000 population), and 3.3.3 (Malaria incidence per 1,000 population).
  • Cuts to “emergency food… assistance” imply a negative impact on Indicator 2.1.1 (Prevalence of undernourishment).
  • Cuts to “peacekeeping” imply a negative impact on Indicator 16.1.1 (Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population) and 16.1.2 (Conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: democracynow.org