Lara Logan says: Didn’t Pres Trump sign an Executive Order stopping these payments immediately after he got to office? If so, those who continued to send this money violated the President’s EO & should be investigated/charged with sedition for undermining his orders. Post at X – well – first off there is no EO stopping the funding of the terrorists in Afghanistan. See details below Deep State tool Thune’s pic…

Here are some facts on American money STILL paying terrorists.
This is not a direct “payment to the Taliban” but a byproduct of delivering aid in a Taliban-controlled environment, where over half of Afghanistan’s 40 million people rely on international support to avoid famine and collapse. Critics like Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) have amplified the claim to push for cuts, arguing it funds terrorism (the Taliban is a U.S.-designated terrorist group).Trump’s 2025 Aid Restrictions and Their ImpactPresident Trump’s second-term executive orders (e.g., EO 14169, signed January 20, 2025) imposed a 90-day freeze on all U.S. foreign aid for review, followed by the termination of 83% of USAID programs (over 5,200 contracts worth tens of billions globally). This was explicitly aimed at “wasteful” spending and ensuring alignment with U.S. interests, including curbing funds that could reach terrorists. For Afghanistan:
- Direct U.S. aid slashed: From $736 million in 2024 to just $206 million so far in 2025, with $562 million in pending contracts canceled by April (e.g., WFP food aid for 12 million people, maternal/child health programs). Total cuts exceeded $1.3 billion across multiple countries, including Afghanistan.
- Broader effects: Secret girls’ schools, midwifery programs, flood repairs, and university scholarships halted; malnutrition deaths rose (e.g., CNN reported child fatalities in July 2025 wards). The Lancet estimates 14 million excess deaths over five years from these cuts.
- UN cash shipments: These have not been fully stopped because they are UN-managed, not unilateral U.S. transfers. The U.S. provides ~40% of global humanitarian funding, so cuts reduce the pool, but the UN continues operations with remaining donor funds (e.g., from Europe, though many like the UK and Germany also cut back). As of November 2025, weekly flights persist at a reduced scale to stabilize the economy and prevent total collapse, which could trigger refugee waves or terrorism spikes.
In short, the U.S. is no longer funding the full $40 million weekly—Trump’s restrictions have gutted its contribution—but residual UN flows continue, with Taliban leakage as a persistent issue.Why Are These Payments Still Happening Despite Restrictions?Several factors explain why the cash shipments haven’t been entirely halted, even under Trump’s aggressive cuts:
- Humanitarian Imperative and Global Coordination: Abruptly ending all aid risks mass starvation (23 million Afghans need it annually) and regional instability. The UN’s 2025 appeal is $2.4 billion; stopping U.S. input doesn’t end the program but forces reliance on others. Aid groups argue the Taliban “tax” is unavoidable in occupied territory, but alternatives (e.g., in-kind goods like food) are costlier and less efficient.
- Congressional and Legal Hurdles: Rep. Burchett’s “No Tax Dollars for Terrorists Act” passed the House in June 2025 but stalled in the Senate (under
@LeaderJohnThune
, as Logan references). A rescission bill to claw back Biden-era funds sits idle. Lara’s post calls for investigating/charging aid officials for “sedition” if they bypassed Trump’s EO, but replies (e.g., from
@TPASarah) note no such EO exists for these UN funds—they tie to the 2020 Doha Agreement (signed by Trump), which Trump hasn’t revoked. Enforcing a full stop requires new legislation, which Senate Republicans haven’t prioritized amid internal divisions.
- Economic Stabilization Trade-Off: The $40 million weekly has propped up the Afghan currency (making it the world’s top performer post-2021) and prevented banking collapse. SIGAR and CSIS reports warn that suspension could crumble the Taliban within a year but would devastate civilians first, outsourcing more burden to the regime and potentially boosting extremism. Trump’s team (e.g., Marco Rubio) emphasizes “efficient” aid but hasn’t targeted UN mechanisms directly.
- Political and Diplomatic Realities: Trump’s focus is on U.S. security (e.g., demanding Bagram base access, repatriating equipment). Aid cuts pressure the Taliban via sanctions and isolation, but full cutoff could backfire by radicalizing the population. As one expert noted, it’s a “dilemma”: aid props up the regime indirectly but averts worse chaos.
|
Aspect
|
Pre-2025 (Biden Era)
|
Post-Trump Restrictions (2025)
|
|---|---|---|
|
U.S. Annual Aid to Afghanistan
|
~$736 million (largest donor)
|
~$206 million (slashed 70%+)
|
|
UN Cash Shipments
|
$40M/week (U.S. funds ~40%)
|
Reduced scale; continues via other donors
|
|
Taliban Benefit
|
Indirect (~$10M/year taxes + skimming)
|
Same mechanisms, but less total volume
|
|
Human Impact
|
Prevented famine for 15M+
|
Rising malnutrition; 14M projected deaths over 5 years
|
|
Legislative Push
|
Burchett bill blocked in Senate
|
House-passed; Senate inaction criticized
|
Bottom Line
Even after an attack on US soldiers by an Afghan terrorist, your tax dollars are still going to the Afghan Taliban. Our bill to Defund the Taliban has been stalled in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee since June 23, 2025.
Please ask @SenatorRisch to pass it. pic.twitter.com/mlehks2zA2
— Legend (@realLegendAfg) November 28, 2025

Happy Thanksgiving Fam! I’m here to help you skip the scramble-gift-buying struggle this year for the holidays. Thousands of you are already customers of The Wellness Company, and you know they are NOT big on promotional sales…. EXCEPT once a year for Black Friday. Literally, it’s the only major sale they have annually.












CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS