So this year has been a painful one, for I’ve made three trips to Africa to report on children dying as a result of President Trump slashing humanitarian aid programs — his most lethal policy. In village after village I’ve found children perishing for want of $2 anti-malaria mosquito nets or 12-cent-a-day AIDS medicines.

Yet while the Trump policy seemed to me to be cruel, it at least appeared consistent and rooted in a clear ideology: He didn’t believe in foreign aid. Likewise, when Trump halted the entry of most refugees early this year, his motivation appeared obvious: He doesn’t want refugees.

Yet the plot now thickens. It turns out Trump likes some aid, and he’s good with white refugees.

Trump is backing a $20 billion rescue package for Argentina, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent talking about raising the total to $40 billion — more than the entire worldwide U.S.A.I.D. budget last year.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with bailing out a country facing a financial crisis: The United States did that in 1995 to rescue Mexico. One difference is that the Mexico bailout was well-crafted and succeeded, while for now it’s not obvious what policy has changed in Argentina that would lead the Trump bailout to achieve stability in a country that is still struggling after more than 20 previous bailouts (including one just this spring by the I.M.F.).

Another difference is that we had an enormous interest in stability in Mexico as our neighbor and major trade partner. Even Trump acknowledges that the bailout of Argentina does not reflect vital American interests: “We don’t have to do it,” he said this month. “It’s not going to make a big difference for our country.”

So why would Trump spend so much money to try to make Argentina great? In part to try to rescue a right-wing Trumpian ally, President Javier Milei, who is now floundering.

The bailout could also significantly benefit a number of wealthy American hedge fund investors, including two billionaire friends of Bessent who previously worked with him, The Times has reported. By some accounts, including Argentine press reports, one of them urged Bessent to intervene. By buying the peso and lifting its value, the United States gives those investors a chance to dump their bad bets.

So the United States is cutting off the kind of foreign aid that keeps children alive for 12 cents a day, but it’s willing to invest far larger sums in a dubious effort to prop up a distant economy — while effectively subsidizing tycoons who made bad investments.

I’m not suggesting that Trump and Bessent are spending $20 billion in American money with the principal aim of rescuing their hedge fund buddies; life is more complicated than that. But many wealthy American conservatives invested heavily in Milei’s Argentina because they were dazzled at the sight of Trump-like leadership in Argentina and by early economic improvements there — and the Trump administration is now trying to rescue Milei for similar reasons, in ways that will also greatly benefit billionaires who believed in him. Ideology and personal financial interests coincide.

“It’s not a bad thing that the U.S. uses its financial pumps to try and get countries out of trouble,” noted Charles Kenny, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington. “The big problem with the Argentina situation is that unless something changes, it really is money down the drain.”

Bessent’s talk about increasing the bailout to $40 billion seemed to be an indication that the first $20 billion is likely to be insufficient. He framed the second round as coming from banks and other private investors, but it’s difficult to see why they would risk their capital without inducements from the Treasury. The Wall Street Journal reports that the banks are seeking some kind of guarantee or pledge to make sure they get their money back.

“The administration was willing to find this kind of money for what seems at least at the moment a badly designed rescue package that probably won’t work,” Kenny said, “when they can’t find money for well designed programs that were actually saving lives.”

Dean Karlan, a development economist at Northwestern University who previously was the chief economist at U.S.A.I.D., suggested applying the metric that Trump claimed at the beginning of his administration to be adopting: Does the aid advance American interests?

A great deal of traditional humanitarian assistance met that standard, Karlan told me. Aid workers suppressed Ebola so it wouldn’t spread to America. Anti-poverty initiatives may have made people less likely to migrate or to support terrorist groups. Nutrition programs put money in the hands of American farmers. Aid generally bolstered America’s soft power worldwide.

“These are all things that are in our interest,” Karlan said, adding, “Spending $20 billion or $40 billion on an Argentine bailout — it’s much more dubious that this is a good use of taxpayer money.”

As for refugees, The Times obtained documents indicating that the administration is considering a radical overhaul to prioritize English speakers, white South Africans and far-right Europeans as refugees. The cap for refugee admissions would be lowered by 94 percent, and those entering would be mostly white South Africans and Europeans. The Washington Post reports that up to 7,000 of 7,500 available positions would go to white Afrikaners from South Africa.

I think of Congolese refugees I interviewed recently in Uganda after they fled mass murder and mass rape, of Afghans I knew who kept American troops or aid workers alive, of Pakistani Christians or Iranian Baha’i followers facing persecution, or of women and girls who were trafficked — and those people can’t get access to the United States even as we pay for air tickets for better-off white Afrikaners who, in at least one case, complain about how difficult it is in America to find servants.

So humanitarianism is being turned into its opposite. Instead of feeding starving children, some foreign aid will reward hedge funds. And refugee status may go not to the world’s neediest, but to some of the world’s whitest.

The post Trump Revives Foreign Aid, Helping Needy Billionaires appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In this time of war overseas, more Americans think foreign policy should be a top focus for the U.S. government in 2024, with a new poll showing international concerns and immigration rising in importance with the public.

About 4 in 10 U.S. adults named foreign policy topics in an open-ended question that asked people to share up to five issues for the government to work on in the next year, according to a December poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

That’s about twice as many who mentioned the topic in the AP-NORC poll conducted last year.

Long-standing economic worries still overshadow other issues. But the new poll’s findings point to increased concern about U.S. involvement overseas — 20% voiced that sentiment in the poll, versus 5% a year ago.

It also shows that the Israeli-Hamas war is feeding public anxiety. The conflict was mentioned by 5%, while almost no one cited it a year ago. The issue has dominated geopolitics since Israel declared war on Hamas in Gaza after that group’s Oct. 7 attack on Israeli soil.

Four percent of U.S. adults mentioned the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as something for their government to focus on this year. That’s similar to the 6% who mentioned it at the end of 2022.

Foreign policy has gained importance among respondents from both parties. Some 46% of Republicans named it, up from 23% last year. And 34% of Democrats list foreign policy as a focal point, compared with 16% a year ago.

Warren E. Capito, a Republican from Gordonsville, Virginia, worries China could soon invade Taiwan, creating a third major potential source of global conflict for the U.S. “They would love to have us split three ways,” he said of China, and “we’re already spread so thin.”

Immigration is also a rising bipartisan concern.

Overall, the poll found that concerns about immigration climbed to 35% from 27% last year. Most Republicans, 55%, say the government needs to focus on immigration in 2024, while 22% of Democrats listed immigration as a priority. That’s up from 45% and 14%, respectively, compared with December 2022.

Janet Brewer has lived all her life in San Diego, across from Tijuana, Mexico, and said the situation on the border has deteriorated in recent years.

“It’s a disaster,” said Brewer, 69, who works part time after running a secretarial and legal and medical transcription small business. “It’s crazy.”

The politics of foreign military aid and immigration policy are entangled, with President Joe Biden ‘s administration promoting a $110 billion package that includes aid for Ukraine and Israel that remains stalled in Congress while Republicans push for a deal allowing major changes in immigration policy and stricter enforcement along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Brewer said she wouldn’t vote for Biden or a Republican for president in 2024, and may opt for independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But she also questions whether a change in the White House would necessarily improve immigration policy.

As for foreign aid, she said: “I know that we need to help. But come on. We’ve done enough.”

Even as immigration and foreign policy rose as concerns, those issues were no match for worries about the economy. Inflation has fallen, unemployment is low and the U.S. has repeatedly defied predictions of a recession — yet this poll adds to a string of them showing a gloomy outlook on the economy.

Some 76% of U.S. adults said this time that they want the government to work on issues related to the economy in 2024, nearly the same as the 75% who said so at this point in 2022.

About 85% of Republicans and 65% of Democrats name the economy as a top issue. But Republicans are more likely than Democrats to want the government to address some specific economic issues: on inflation 41% vs. 22% and on government spending or debt, 22% vs. 7%.

Meanwhile, 3 in 10 U.S. adults listed inflation as an issue that the government should focus on, unchanged from 2022.

The economy is a top issue mentioned by 18- to 29-year-olds (84%), followed by inflation specifically (39%), personal finances issues (38%) and foreign policy (34%). In the same age bracket, 32% mentioned education or school loans as something for the government to address in 2024. That’s despite the Biden administration trying new, more modest efforts to cancel debts after the Supreme Court struck down its larger original push.

Among those 30 and older, only 19% mention student loans. But Travis Brown, a 32-year-old forklift operator in Las Vegas, noted that he’s back to getting calls seeking payment of his student loans.

“Right now, with the economy, wages are not matching,” Brown said. “Blue collar’s going away and I don’t see how that’s going to boost an economy. An economy thrives off the working class. Not off the rich.”

Brown also suggested that the U.S. is too focused on shipping aid to its overseas allies.

“I care about others, I do,” he said. “But when you sit here and say, ‘I just sent $50 million over to Israel’ and then I go outside and I see half a neighborhood rundown … you’ve got to take care of home.”

One possible sign that larger sentiments on the economy could be improving slightly is that overall mentions of personal financial issues declined some, with 30% mentioning them now compared with 37% last year. Drops occurred for Democrats, 27% vs. 33%, and among Republicans, falling to 30% compared with 37% in 2022.

One-quarter of U.S. adults say 2024 will be a better year than 2023 for them personally, and 24% expect it will be a worse year. Some 37% of Republicans expect it’ll be a worse year for them, compared with 20% of independents and 13% of Democrats.

Just 5% of U.S. adults are “extremely” or “very” confident that the federal government can make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2024, with 7% of Democrats and 11% of independents being optimistic, compared with 1% of Republicans.

Brown is a Democrat but said he was disillusioned enough to perhaps sit out the presidential election — especially if it proves to be a 2020 rematch between Biden and former President Donald Trump, who has built a commanding early lead in the 2024 Republican primary.

“I don’t think I will participate and maybe that’s bad,” Brown said. “But, it’s like, you’re losing faith.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post More Americans think foreign policy should be a top US priority for 2024, an AP-NORC poll finds appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.