Every few months, I participate in USC Student Health’s Campus Blood Drives. Though my personal donation is a marginal contribution to the blood bank under LifeStream, I am grateful that their service regions directly cover hospitals and medical facilities in Southern California, meaning my blood goes toward my neighbors and community members waiting for transfers. 

Nonetheless, medical stability is a limited privilege unique to American residents. Outside of our national border, a trajectory of devastation is following the Trump administration’s agenda to terminate the majority of historically robust humanitarian relief projects. The withdrawal received widespread backlash.  A New York Times editorial by Nicholas Kristof, foreign policies opinion columnist, conveys their disparagement in its title: “The World’s Richest Men Take On the World’s Poorest Children.” Although the sentiment may be candid, the inference behind it is truthful. 

The Department of State has prided itself on being the largest single provider of humanitarian assistance worldwide. Yet, President Donald Trump’s decision to cut back investments in foreign aid crumbled the United States’ previous reputation of being stable and trustworthy. The White House justified its actions under the rationale that the sector is “antithetical [to] American values.” Notably, these waves of funding cuts primarily threaten life-saving HIV treatment and malaria cure in regions of the Global South. 

In addition to weakening health infrastructures, the U.S.’ exit from the global aid scene also triggered resurgences of volatile diseases. Some of the federal pause’s direct victims are nations with high probability of epidemic outbreaks. Scientists are concerned about disproportionately vulnerable populations in countries such as Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Afghanistan.  

We are not ready for another pandemic with a high fatality rate that harms demographics such as children, the elderly and immunocompromised individuals with infections, hunger and displacements. The Department of Government Efficiency presumed that America’s previous financial commitments to health-care programs are eating into a large portion of the federal budget. 

Realistically, in the Fiscal Year 2024, the United States Agency for International Development only used up to about 0.3% of the overall federal spending, ranking 19th among all agencies.  

To understand our generation’s perspectives, I spoke to Karen Lee, a junior majoring in quantitative biology, and the president of the USC chapter of Blueprints For Pangaea, a student-run nonprofit that helps transfer medical supplies to critical areas through its beneficiary network.

Karen informed me of the drastic differences her club has felt since the new administration came into power. In the past, Blueprints for Pangaea typically sourced supplies from regional clinics with excess goods and conducted their own need assessment before sending these materials to communities in need. 

Now, their overseas shipment processes are not as straightforward due to the lack of facilitation at the federal level. These initiatives have been running with collaborators locally and abroad since 2020, and they did not expect sudden events to affect the operation of their resource transportations. Looking ahead to the future, she admitted that “there will always be setbacks in the way that things are done” and that “the definition of a place in need is kind of shifting.”

Despite the carelessness of those in power on a structural scale, USC itself has been vocal in global health reforms for a long time. The Bachelor of Science degree at the Keck School of Medicine allows students to explore the intersections of public health and policies. Students focus on the medical and pharmaceutical components of health promotion and disease prevention, but within the context of global affairs. 

However, due to the cessation of cross-border clinics and vaccination projects, despite the holistic and inclusive curricula, students will likely have slim chances of working in global initiatives to help the communities in need combat life-threatening diseases and health crises in the years to come.

Fortunately, the U.S. government’s policy orientations still do not limit most non-governmental organizations. Hence, college students could also consider volunteering for organizations such as Project HOPE, whose urgent relief covers in-danger regions such as Ethiopia, Indonesia and Kosovo . These support forces also overlap with other social advocacy issues, such as gender-based violence. The volunteers engage in translation, emergency responses, surgical, nursing and other varying facets of care work. 

Moreover, USC has also contributed to in-depth research through the Institute on Inequalities in Global Health. The institute not only taps into academic work but also collaborates with civil society, government and United Nations partners to address global disparities. 

Given the shifting landscape of research funding, cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the dismantling of the USAID, we must take action. As students and average citizens, we may not be able to make policy recommendations or donate millions of dollars to compensate for the ongoing gap, but we can still urge restorative justice and new methods of investing in foreign aid.