Which countries did trump send money to recently
Executive summary
The most recent public accounting shows U.S. funds under the Trump administration were directed to a set of high-profile recipients tied to 2024–25 emergency and security packages — notably Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and Gaza — while longstanding USAID disbursements to dozens of development and humanitarian partners (including many African and Asian countries) continued to be listed on government ledgers even as the administration paused, reviewed, and in some cases rescinded or reprogrammed funding [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and official data reveal both who has been named as recipients and a parallel policy story: a 90-day freeze, rescissions, agency reorganization and new direct-agreement programs that complicate the simple question “which countries did Trump send money to recently” [3] [5] [6] [7].
1. Emergency national-security package beneficiaries: Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and Gaza
Congress’s April 2024 national security emergency bill explicitly earmarked large tranches of aid for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and Gaza, and subsequent reporting lists those places as principal beneficiaries of the $95 billion package (of which roughly $26.8 billion was for economic and humanitarian assistance), establishing them as recent, named recipients of U.S. funds carried into the Trump era [1].
2. USAID-era top recipients and big-ticket countries like Ukraine and the DRC
USAID’s 2024 disbursement data show Ukraine as a leading recipient — cited at roughly $6.1 billion for 2024 in one visualization — with the Democratic Republic of Congo also listed among the top beneficiaries for humanitarian and development aid [3]. These figures come from USAID and public trackers that record obligations and disbursements across hundreds of countries [8] [3].
3. Regional lists: Asia, the Middle East and vulnerable states at risk if U.S. aid stops
Regional analyses identify Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Philippines among major Asia-Pacific beneficiaries, while West Bank and Gaza and Taiwan are singled out in fiscal 2024 listings; reporting warns these and other countries stand to lose significant programming if Washington halts or rescinds funds [9] [2].
4. Africa: new agreements and targeted health funding under the retooled approach
The administration’s new health initiative and Secretary of State agreements list a string of African states — Cameroon, Eswatini, Lesotho, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Botswana, Ethiopia, Malawi and Côte d’Ivoire — as signatories to U.S. health accords, reflecting a pivot toward bilateral, ministry-level deals rather than the previous USAID architecture [7].
5. Cuts, freezes and rescissions changed who actually gets money on the ground
Even as statutory appropriations named recipients, the Trump administration’s January 2025 executive order instituting a 90-day pause on USAID activity, subsequent layoffs, and later rescissions and transfers meant that obligations did not always translate into disbursements; reports document rescissions of billions and the removal of USAID operating expenses, complicating which countries ultimately received funds in practice [5] [4] [6] [10].
6. How political priorities and ideology shaped who received funding and why
Officials have tied aid decisions to strategic priorities — countering Russia and China and backing key partners — while administration rhetoric and policy moves (expanding the Mexico City rule to limit grantees’ DEI activities, reorganizing USAID functions) reveal ideological aims that affect recipient eligibility and program content, an explicit administrative agenda reported by outlets including the New York Times and the White House release [11] [5].
7. Data caveats and how to read “sent money to” in this moment
Public sources provide lists of obligated and budgeted recipients but also document a policy environment of pauses, reprogramming, and new direct-agreement channels; therefore “sent money to” can mean (a) congressionally appropriated earmarks for named recipients, (b) obligations recorded by USAID and State, or (c) actual disbursements — and available reporting often blends those categories without always showing final cash flows [8] [4] [3].