Hurricane Melissa: A test for Trump's foreign aid cuts

The Category 5 Hurricane Melissa made landfall in Jamaica on October 28th, wreaking havoc on the Caribbean throughout the following days. Widespread damage, flooding, evacuations, and fatalities were reported across the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Cuba, and Turks and Caicos. The US government quickly responded, pledging to provide $24 million for rescue and relief efforts. The State Department also sent Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DART) to multiple countries and deployed additional search and rescue teams to Jamaica.

In comparison to the Trump administration’s subdued response to other significant natural disasters, such as the catastrophic earthquake in Myanmar, support for Jamaica appears impressive thus far. However, real humanitarian success is determined over months and years of sustained engagement—in other words, not merely by rebuilding, but by building better. The initial $24 million proves little about US commitment. With a gutted foreign aid infrastructure, Hurricane Melissa will be a true test of whether or not that’s still possible.

Previously, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) would have run point on post-disaster relief and rebuilding. But after seeing its workforce collapse and more than $1 billion in funding terminated due to Trump’s cuts, the State Department inherited its remnants. USAID was by no means a perfect mechanism, but it could guarantee a level of consistency in humanitarian response capacity which is now frighteningly uncertain. While the initial deployment of DART proves that disaster response is still operationally intact, sustained capacity with fewer personnel and resources remains unproven. 

Jamaica presents an ideal test case for other reasons, too. While the Caribbean is highly vulnerable to hurricanes and other climate-related disasters, Jamaica stands out as a model of good governance and climate preparedness. Through fiscal reform, innovation in risk financing, and climate-smart policies, Jamaica has exceeded every expectation for a developing nation. It should be able to rely on the international system that it has dutifully bought into to respond, including the United States. 

The participation of the US in Jamaica’s rebuilding would not be charity work, but rather shared investment. Sustained recovery efforts could eventually attract the US private sector to fulfill massive infrastructure needs, if the proper mechanism to coordinate such efforts over time exists. US companies can help to provide sustainable development through public-private partnerships, local equity participation, and multilateral development banks. 

But before any of that can happen, the basic needs of Jamaicans will need to be restored. Thousands are desperate for aid in remote and rural parts of the island where hurricane damage has destroyed the already limited infrastructure. This is where international organizations, in coordination with the US government, must step in. However, the lingering question is one of feasibility, as experts predict that the NGO response will be weaker following foreign aid cuts that left many US NGO partners with only half of their previous workforces. 

If the US foreign aid system can still effectively support relief and reconstruction efforts in the long term with fewer employees and less funding, it would have to be considered a win. There is no reason that a simple cost-benefit analysis cannot be applied to our aid efforts—any lessening of the burden on the American taxpayer without a reduction in capacity is objectively a positive. However, if Melissa turns out to be too much for the US to handle, the seemingly reckless cuts will have proven to be, well, reckless.