Buried among the myriad Executive Orders that President Trump signed during his first week was a writ to suspend for three months any new international development assistance — funding that saves children’s lives through health, nutrition, and food security interventions — even though Congress had already appropriated the money. 

Was it news to newly minted Secretary of State Marco Rubio that one of the most impactful tools in his diplomacy toolbox was being axed? During his recent confirmation hearing, members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee probed Rubio about his thoughts on China, the Middle East, and the Trump administration’s “America First Foreign Policy.” But in the many hours Rubio spent answering questions, no one mentioned pausing or stopping development assistance.  

To characterize this EO as potentially “cataclysmic” is not an overstatement. The U.S. is the biggest donor worldwide to programs that save and protect the lives of the poorest children on the planet — programs that provide critical health, food and nutrition interventions. This order literally could mean the difference between life and death for tens of thousands of children, depending on how long it continues and how strictly it is implemented by the new Administration.  

While some non-governmental implementers of USAID projects might have the financial bandwidth to withstand a three-month pause in funding (assuming it ends then), many smaller NGOs will likely find it challenging. Some projects will undoubtedly be directly impacted now, as funding that they had planned on receiving (after going through the rigorous USAID grant process), will now abruptly be withheld.  

Three months can be too long to wait for children living in extreme, multidimensional poverty, meaning they lack necessities such as nutritious food or clean water. Because children’s bodies are still developing, they are unable to withstand bouts of extreme heat, dirty water, or exposure to infection the way adults can. Because they are still growing, children are more fragile, and they die faster without the proper interventions. Absent treatment, for example, a third of HIV-positive infants will die before they turn 1 and 50% will fail to make it to their second birthday. Likewise, a young child sick with untreated diarrheal disease can pass away within days and an infant with a respiratory infection could die in mere hours lacking intervention. Worldwide, the poorest children are twice as likely to die in childhood than their wealthier peers. As the biggest donor worldwide to poverty-focused development assistance, the U.S. decision to suddenly withhold previously committed resources could prove devastating. 

Let’s not forget that it was U.S. leadership (along with other donors) that stemmed the deaths of children under 5 due to preventable diseases and malnutrition, driving those numbers down from 12.8 million in 1990 to 4.9 million in 2023. And it was Republicans in Congress like Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and former Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-AL), along with their colleagues, who first set up and grew that account within the foreign aid funding bill. These lawmakers felt strongly that it was morally wrong to let babies die from diarrhea or malnutrition when cheap and effective cures were readily available.  

It is also thanks to U.S. leadership that 7.8 million babies were born HIV-free over the past 20 years and close to 12 million children and pregnant women were saved from malaria – one of the biggest killers of young children worldwide. These efforts too were led by Republicans – George W. Bush in the White House, former Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN), and former Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), among others. 

Marco Rubio, also a Republican when he was in the Senate, is cut from the same cloth. As a senator, Rubio led polio and malaria eradication efforts and promoted international basic education, especially for girls — all highly impactful, life-saving, and life-affirming development assistance programs.  

Disease control and eradication, and education are all proven and highly effective methods of ending the worst aspects of poverty, reducing suffering, and promoting global security and stability. Marco Rubio and many members of Congress know this to be true. President Trump’s executive order allows the Secretary of State to waive the rules for “specific programs.” Given that he has deep knowledge of how effective and important development programs are — especially those that protect and save the lives of the most vulnerable children — Secretary Rubio should take steps to ensure that at least these will continue. The alternative is sobering and, likely, tragic.