“The ultimate importance to the United States of our security and development assistance programs cannot be exaggerated.  The programs and activities provided for in these bills will enable the United States to continue its contribution to the achievement of a secure and stable international environment.” – Ronald Reagan

I invite civil, bipartisan discussion to this post. 

The above quote is from 1981 upon signing the International Security and Development Cooperation Act.  The full speech discusses the vital importance of foreign aid and how the importance is often obscured by the long-term nature of the results.  Similar statements on the importance of foreign aid have been made by President George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and many others.  According to the American Diplomacy Journal, credibility is one of the top principles of operational diplomacy.

Every new administration has its own goals and looks to implement policy changes in government, and that is completely natural.  Any newly elected government is going to modify policy as it sees fit.  However, those policy changes typically fit within the underlying framework that has been put forth by Congress and previous administrations.  Today I would like to talk about the importance of reliability and continuity of the Federal Government in the United States in both foreign and domestic policy.

Last week, Donald Trump announced sweeping new tariffs across almost the entire world.  Markets immediately reacted worldwide on Thursday and Friday, while futures indicate the turmoil will continue this week.  JP Morgan now expects a recession in 2025 while other recession forecasts are increasing.  This major change to U.S. foreign policy had immediate consequences.  Moreover, after the president threatened tariffs before now several times, only to largely reverse course several times, there is no reason for foreign trade partners to believe the word of this administration going forward.  These tariffs not only hurt the economy and international relations immediately, they greatly reduce the reliability of America as a trade partner going forward.

As noted in the quote above by Ronald Reagan, international aid is incredibly important to the diplomatic efforts of America.  One of the most widely respected programs from the G.W. Bush administration was the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, known as PEPFAR.  This program is one of many international aid programs put in place by the United States and was estimated to save 26 million lives in 50 countries, and helped American diplomatic efforts greatly in Africa.  Suddenly shuttering this type of support from USAID, against congressional appropriations, will reduce the reliability of America as a reliable partner, making it more difficult to trust the United States in the future.

In 2015, during the Obama administration, a deal was reached with Iran to limit their nuclear weapons advancements, an effort that spanned 12 years and started during the G.W. Bush administration.  During his first administration Donald Trump singlehandedly decided to pull the United States out of this deal, despite seemingly no evidence to support his claims that Iran was not honoring their commitments.  President Biden attempted to resurrect the deal, but Iran was hesitant to enter into another agreement, and they remain hesitant as Donald Trump now also is looking for a new deal with Iran on nuclear capabilities, now threatening to strike Iran if they refuse a deal.  Inconsistent policies are harming the ability for the United States to negotiate international deals.

One of the strongest military alliances in the world is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  While NATO was originally formed as a deterrent on communist aggression, it has evolved as a joint defense organization to help ensure the security of western countries.  Despite the strong, long-standing relationships, Donald Trump has cast doubt on the United States’ involvement in case one of our partners is attacked.  This rhetoric is making our strongest allies question sharing intelligence and isolating the United States from our most important international defense partners as America is no longer seen as a reliable international defense partner.

Since taking office for his second term, Donald Trump, through DOGE, has claimed significant waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending.  Claiming they are fixing this fraudulent spending, the administration has cancelled thousands of federal contracts throughout the country; these contracts were already signed with many projects already underway.  Areas with cancelled contracts include: farm contracts, rural community housing affordability, medical research, and education.  Cutting up congressionally approved contracts without cause will damage the reliability of the federal government for projects going forward.

On top of these recent upheavals in American international relations, the United States has also pulled out of the Paris Agreement (twice), the Trans-Pacific Partnership, UNESCO, the UN Human Rights Council, turned away from Ukraine, and is standing more closely with many of our adversaries than our allies.  While many of these were during his first administration, these major shifts in diplomatic policy undercut the reliability of America in international policy which will make it more difficult to trust the United States for years to come.

As Ronald Reagan noted in his speech in 1981, the results of many of these programs are not immediately evident.  It takes years, maybe decades, to fully realize the diplomatic value of foreign aid, the improvements from investment in domestic programs, and the deterrent value of our key alliances.  Making the United States an unreliable partner in international affairs, as well as in domestic programs, will harm American credibility and have serious ramifications for decades.

Please consider reaching out to your senators and representatives to voice your opinions.

Thank you.

Sources:

Statement on Signing International Security and Foreign Assistance Legislation

Quotes – USGLC

Dow futures tumble as the massive market sell-off continues | CNN Business

Global brokerages raise recession odds; J.P.Morgan sees 60% chance | Reuters

Trump and leaders of Canada and Mexico say tariffs will be delayed one month after talks

The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief – United States Department of State %

The Future Of Investment In PEPFAR: Understanding PEPFAR’s Multiple Economic, Health, And Diplomatic Impacts | Health Affairs

What Is the Iran Nuclear Deal? | Council on Foreign Relations

The Rise and Fall of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

Fact Check: Why did Donald Trump ditch the Iran deal? | The Week

Trump threatens to bomb Iran if nuclear deal can’t be reached – POLITICO

Trump casts doubt on NATO security agreement: ‘If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them’ – POLITICO

As Trump pivots to Russia, allies weigh sharing less intel with U.S.

Trump signs order directing US withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement | AP News

Why Trump Killed TPP — And Why It Matters To You

Trump’s top five withdrawals from international agreements

Broken Promises: Over 30,000 Farmers Denied Funds – National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Trump administration throws hundreds of affordable housing projects into limbo after contract cuts | AP News

NIH research cuts threaten the search for life-saving cures and jobs in every state | AP News

Trump administration cancels $400M in grants and contracts with Columbia University | AP News

Ten Principles of Operational Diplomacy: a proposed framework | American Diplomacy Est 1996

“We are a rich nation and can afford many things.  But ill-health which can be prevented or cured is one thing we cannot afford.” – Harry S. Truman, 1945

𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥, 𝐛𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭.

Among the many controversial nominees ultimately confirmed to Donald Trump’s cabinet, one of the most controversial was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  I heard a lot of support for his ideas on removing additives in food and cutting down on the prevalence of processed food in American diets.  Simultaneously, I heard a lot of opposition to his skepticism of modern medicine, vaccines and mental health issues in particular.

As we journey through the third month of his second Presidency, today I want to look at the wide-reaching effects of the Trump Administration on human health in the United States.

With the constant swirl of headline news from this administration, the continued measles outbreak in Texas rarely seems to make the front page in today’s news.  However, as the head of Health and Human Services continues to downplay the efficacy and safety of vaccines, cases of the disease are still rising in Texas and outbreaks are beginning in many other states.  From a total of 285 cases in 2024, we have already seen 483¹ cases in 2025.  In addition to measles outbreaks, we have also seen an increase in Vitamin A Toxicity as Kennedy Jr. pushes it as an alternative treatment for measles.  These actions directly jeopardize the health of America.

This week, news broke that the administration was cutting tens of thousands of jobs from the CDC, FDA, and NIH; despite claims of transparency, the team that responds to FOIA requests was among these cuts.  These groups are responsible for a wide array of government programs, most notably including tracking infectious diseases (see measles, above), ensuring the safety of our food supply, and medical research.  Cuts to these critical departments put America at higher risk of food borne illness and transmissible diseases, on top of harming future health outcomes in the face of disease.

As part of the initiative to cut wasteful spending, hundreds, if not thousands, of grants awarded by the National Institutes of Health have been cancelled; most of these grants are for research already under way and these projects are now at risk of ending prematurely, without results.  The research being cancelled includes cancer, cardiac health, vaccines, and mental health.  Cancelling research grants hurts the long-term health of America, and America’s status as a leader in medical research.

The Trump administration is planning to cut 83,000 jobs from Veterans Affairs.  This department is responsible for providing health care to American Military Veterans.  As we already have reports of staffing shortages at the VA which lead to challenges for our veterans in obtaining the medical care they deserve, cutting this agency will only exacerbate the serious issues within the agency.  Cutting 20% of the staff at Veterans Affairs will cause immediate harm to the 9+ million veterans enrolled in its services.

The CDC has cited the end of the Covid-19 Pandemic as rationale for cancelling grants and contracts awarded to state and local governments.  While this funding was initially intended strictly for the purpose of tracking and fighting the pandemic, last year the funding was opened up for use in other areas.  This sudden cut in resources will hamper many states’ efforts to improve their health departments and potentially strain state budgets.  Cutting state and local resources for tracking health care heightens risk of increased disease. ²

Among the first actions of this new administration were drastic cuts to the USAID program.  The spending allocated in this program helps fund nutrition and health care programs worldwide, along with many international non-profit organizations dedicated to combating issues tied to poverty.  While this action will directly harm international citizens, it will also harm our diplomatic efforts.  Moreover, as we saw clearly in 2020, infectious disease transmission does not follow international borders and this will open up new pathways for disease to spread worldwide, including in the United States.  Curtailing USAID increases the likelihood of infectious disease in the United States. ³

Each of these actions, on its own, will create immediate uncertainty in the health and well-being of America.  However, taking all of these actions together makes it even more difficult to project the final outcome of the Trump administration’s health policies.  However, each of these actions is detrimental to the health of America and a compound effect of them all together is likely to significantly worsen health outcomes in the United States for years to come.

Note 1 – this value will likely increase in the coming days – the source from the CDC below should have an updated figure, but with some of the cuts discussed in this post, I am not sure if that is true.

Note 2 – As many states, Iowa included, are pushing to decrease state-level income taxes, federal cuts have an additional risk of creating budget shortfalls at the state and local levels.  A deficit is already projected in Iowa.

Note 3 – Historically, worse conditions from disease, violence, and hunger have contributed to mass migration; given the current immigration stance in the United States, I imagine this migration may look different than in years past.

Sources:

RFK Jr. weighing FDA crackdown on food additives under Trump – CBS News

RFK Jr. Says Ultra-Processed Foods are ‘Poison’ | TIME

Trump, RFK Jr. go after antidepressants, weight loss drugs. Here’s what the science says – ABC News

Texas reports latest measles numbers as cases continue to spread | Fox News

Measles Cases and Outbreaks | Measles (Rubeola) | CDC

Some measles patients in West Texas show signs of vitamin A toxicity, doctors say, raising concerns about misinformation | CNN

Trump Administration Begins Layoffs at CDC, FDA and Other Health Agencies – The New York Times

Scholars, groups sue Trump administration over canceled NIH research funding | CNN

HHS Grants Terminated

5 reasons federal cuts are hitting veterans especially hard | PBS News

Veterans groups raise the alarm about DOGE cuts at the VA : NPR

Veterans Affairs: Addressing Longstanding Management Challenges Requires Sustained Leadership | U.S. GAO

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/26/health/trump-state-health-grants-cuts.html?unlocked_article_code=1.804.5NAV.v3yWUmgZu4W_&smid=url-share

Trump administration says it will pull back billions in COVID funding from local health departments | AP News

Trump’s ending of 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts slams programs around the world | AP News

Trump administration’s USAID cuts have implications for humanitarian workers worldwide : NPR

In potential showdown, aid groups demand court find USAID, State officials in contempt | WOSU Public Media

USAID staffers stunned, angered by Trump admin’s DOGE shutdown of $40B agency | Fox News

Iowa revenues will drop below current spending with new 3.8% flat tax

I invite civil, bipartisan discussion to this post.

Most of the people who are reading this post probably do not need to be told the importance of voting.  However, in light of two special elections in Iowa since the 2024 election, along with a Supreme Court election in Wisconsin and special elections in Florida both on April 1^st, I feel it remains a vitally important topic.

There is one common refrain I have heard from a lot of people over the years, sometimes in person, in news articles, or interviews, and I am sure you have heard it too: My vote won’t make a difference.

This can be a difficult narrative to break because on the surface, it is almost certainly true.  For example, in an election to the United States Senate, an entire state is voting for their preferred candidate making it relatively unlikely that any single voter is truly going to be the determining vote in that election.  On the other hand, the general sentiment that a vote won’t make a difference is likely to be shared among a population with other common attitudes and the apathy of entire voting blocs absolutely has the ability to swing elections.

Moreover, voter turnout swings dramatically depending on the type and year of the election.  Many voters tend to think of voting specifically in major elections – voter turnout is far and away the highest in presidential election years with standard midterm elections in a distant second place.  In 2022 1.22 million voters cast a ballot in the gubernatorial race while 1.66 million cast a ballot for the presidential race in 2024.  According to the federal register, Iowa has a voting age population of nearly 2.5 million people, meaning over 30% of the eligible population did not vote in recent elections.

Iowa had a special election in 2025 for the 35^th Senate District as the incumbent resigned her position to become the Lieutenant Governor.  In the election on January 28^th, Democrat Mike Zimmer won the seat by a margin of 52% – 48%, taking one seat in the Iowa Senate from Republican control.  As President Trump won the vote in that district just two months earlier with a 60% majority, this swing has been touted as a major flip in favor of Democrats.

I want to take an opportunity to look more closely at this election result and see what we can conclude from this election result.

In the most recent general election in Iowa 35^th Senate District in November 2022, there were a total of 24,266 voters compared with only 9.308 voters in the special election in January 2025.  Although the headline numbers are striking – the seat was won by a Republican with 60% of the vote in 2022 and lost with only 48% of the vote in 2025 – the district also saw a decline in votes of 62%.  Voter apathy in special elections is strong, and this was no exception.

According to the Iowa Legislature website, there are approximately 64,000 people in this senate district and according to the U.S. census, 77% of Iowa residents are over 18 years old meaning the voting age population in the district is approximately 49,000 people, yet even in the most recent general election, less than half of those eligible cast a vote.  Voter apathy even in a general mid-term election is high.

So, what conclusions can be drawn from the recent elections in Iowa?  I do not believe we can make any proclamations about the general mood of the population from these recent special elections.  However, I believe we can firmly conclude that votes in special elections carry even more weight than those in a general election on account of the reduced voter turnout in those elections.  Voting in special elections is exceptionally important.

With 435 representatives in the United States, each representative has a voting age population of about 575,000 people.  Interestingly, one of the biggest arguments against the Constitution during the Convention was the requirement that a district be no smaller 30,000 people; this was considered to be too few representatives to adequately serve their constituents.  If we had more representatives, each requiring fewer votes to win office, it may assuage the fear that our singular vote does not matter.

Please always stay informed about elections on all levels and all times; those elected in Presidential Election cycles, mid-terms, and special elections all have the same power to affect change.

Thank you.

Sources:

Federal Register :: Estimates of the Voting Age Population for 2021

2024 United States presidential election in Iowa – Wikipedia

2022 Iowa elections – Wikipedia

1787: Centinel, Letter I (Pamphlet) | Online Library of Liberty

State of Iowa – Canvass State

Screenshot 2025-02-24 083359.png (2067×790)

Iowa Democrats flip Senate seat in special election

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Iowa

https://iowa-legis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html