Day: May 14, 2026

The Trump administration’s so-called “America First Global Health Strategy” turns one of the most effective and humane tools of U.S. foreign policy into an instrument of coercion. We now condition lifesaving health aid on concessions from vulnerable countries and replace partnership with exploitation, thus undermining both American values and long-term national interests.

Throughout the 20th and into the 21st century, American resources were deployed to provide relief to countless millions throughout the world. Think Herbert Hoover in the aftermath of World War I, the Marshall Plan after World War II and the later formation of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). These initiatives were driven by both genuine concern for the wellbeing of others, but also enlightened self-interest. Stable and healthy nations were less likely to wage war.  American aid benefited the American economy that produced the tools and the agricultural products that were the foundation for this aid.

For decades, U.S. foreign assistance has represented a tiny share of federal spending — about one percent of the budget — but has delivered outsized benefits. It has helped contain infectious diseases before they reach our shores, stabilized fragile regions and built goodwill that strengthens diplomatic relationships while saving millions of lives at relatively low cost. 

Trump has abandoned any pretense of foreign aid altruism, replacing it with a sullied quid pro quo. The new approach abandons that framework. It was previewed in his dealings with Ukraine when he conditioned continued military assistance to that country on mineral concessions before simply insisting that other NATO members buy American weaponry and transfer these to Ukraine. Trump now applies this sinister transactional approach to medical aid to some of the poorest countries in the world.

According to reporting in The New York Times and the Associated Press and analysis by Public Citizen, the administration has pressed some 30 countries in Africa and Latin America to sign agreements granting the United States access to sensitive health data and valuable natural resources as a condition for receiving even minimal health assistance. These are not routine bilateral arrangements negotiated on equal footing. They are ultimatums delivered to countries facing urgent public health crises.

Consider Zambia, where the administration has reportedly weighed a $2 billion deal withholding, among other things, HIV treatment support affecting over one million people unless the country expands U.S. access to its mineral resources. In short, it is leveraging human lives for economic gain. In other cases, countries are being asked to provide viral samples and health data without assurances that resulting vaccines or treatments will be shared equitably. This raises profound ethical concerns and threatens to erode global cooperation in disease surveillance — cooperation that is essential to preventing the next pandemic. Not surprisingly, certain governments, among them Ghana, Zimbabwe and Kenya, have rejected the overtures, having concluded that the trade-offs are too high a price.

The moral problem is obvious. Conditioning lifesaving aid on unrelated concessions exploits desperation. It echoes a discredited era when powerful nations extracted wealth from poorer ones under the guise of assistance. The United States should not revive that model, particularly in the realm of global health, where trust and transparency are indispensable.

The strategic costs are just as serious.  The perception that U.S. aid is transactional and predatory will diminish cooperation on data sharing, early warning systems, and joint research. That makes Americans less safe, not more. Furthermore, foreign policy conducted through secret deals that trade public health for private advantage invites abuse and evades democratic accountability. Congress cannot exercise meaningful oversight if it is kept in the dark, and the public cannot assess policies whose consequences include preventable illness and death.

Proponents may argue that tying aid to economic or strategic benefits simply reflects realism. But realism properly understood recognizes that power is not only measured in transactions. It is also measured in credibility, alliances, and the willingness of others to cooperate in times of crisis. A policy that saves pennies while sacrificing trust is not pragmatic; it is shortsighted.

The United States can pursue its interests without abandoning its principles. That means maintaining robust global health programs that are transparent, evidence-based, and grounded in mutual benefit. It means supporting equitable access to the fruits of medical research. And it means rejecting the premise that the lives of people in poorer countries can be used as bargaining chips. When the U.S. conditions lifesaving care on extractive concessions, it diminishes the nation’s moral standing, weakens its strategic position, and endangers global health. Congress should demand full disclosure of these agreements, prohibit coercive conditions on humanitarian aid, and reaffirm a simple proposition: that American leadership is strongest when it aligns power with principle.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

One of the largest data centers in the nation has been proposed on Alaska’s Arctic North Slope, where boosters say it could take advantage of abundant land, cold temperatures for cooling and a huge supply of natural gas for power.

The $500 million development would occupy an entire square mile with multiple buildings in a remote area off the Dalton Highway, some 25 miles south of the North Slope’s major infrastructure. That’s according to documents released this week by the state, which on Tuesday issued a preliminary decision to lease the property to the project’s operator.

A newly built pipeline would carry natural gas to fuel the data center’s power plant — which, according to the documents, could use more than twice as much of the fuel as urban Alaska consumes for electrical generation and home and commercial heating. The project could ultimately produce up to three gigawatts of power for its own use, making it competitive with some of the largest data centers under development in the Lower 48.

The company behind the project is Stak Energy, which last year proposed a far smaller project more narrowly focused on digital mining of cryptocurrency. It now says it plans to support “large-scale AI and cloud computing operations,” including training of large-scale machine learning models and high-performance scientific and analytical computing.

The company in November proposed its lease to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, which subsequently published a notice to solicit competing bids. None came in, so the department is now proceeding with the leasing process, with a public comment period on the preliminary decision open through June 15.

Stak has not disclosed who would finance its new project, though it previously said it was raising money from Anchorage firm McKinley Alaska Private Investment.

Stak has expanded significantly in recent months, making a number of politically connected hires including Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s former natural resources commissioner, John Boyle, and a former special assistant at the natural resources department, Jim Shine.

The company’s founder and chief executive, Sparrow Mahoney, grew up in Alaska and attended Wasilla High School.

Stak officials declined to respond to specific questions about its proposal. But the company shared a prepared statement that describes itself as having “deep Alaska roots, built on decades of combined experience across the state’s energy and infrastructure landscape — and proud to help build Alaska’s next era of prosperity.”

The lease application, the company said, “reflects an important milestone for anchoring Alaska as America’s at-scale energy solution — a meaningful step toward bringing opportunity, jobs, and revenue home to stay.”

“Stak Energy is committed to responsible development, expanding opportunity, and contributing to a more diverse and resilient Alaskan economy,” the company said.

Energy experts said that Stak’s lease application, released by the state, is thorough. But it also raises a number of questions.

One is how quickly the company can secure the natural gas-powered turbines that it would use to generate electricity. Rising demand for those turbines, prompted by the rush to build new data centers and the overall expansion of natural gas-fired power, is leading to manufacturing backlogs as long as seven years; Stak says it wants its initial operations to begin in 2028.

Then, there’s the question of where, exactly, Stak will get its natural gas supply.

Alaska’s North Slope oil fields contain huge deposits of natural gas. But historically, petroleum companies have almost exclusively extracted oil from those fields, as it’s more energy-dense and can be shipped down the 800-mile trans-Alaska pipeline; minimal infrastructure exists to move North Slope natural gas to market.

Companies presumably would be willing to sell gas to a project like Stak’s, according to Antony Scott, a former commercial petroleum analyst for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

But details of Stak’s land lease application makes clear that at the time it was submitted, the company hadn’t yet struck a firm deal for gas supply, he added. Stak says its gas pipeline could run anywhere between 25 and 90 miles, which implies that it could connect to any number of different petroleum fields on the North Slope.

“That means they don’t have a gas supply,” Scott said.

Scott added, though, that the project’s remote location — and the fact that it wouldn’t connect to Alaska’s urban power grid and risk driving up demand and prices for electricity, like data centers have in the Lower 48 — help smooth the project’s path.

“The issue of data centers and the effect on normal humanity’s electricity bills is causing real angst,” Scott said. On Alaska’s North Slope, he added, “we avoid all of that. You can just step into this friendly environment.”

Stak’s application and supporting material say its project has another leg up on Lower 48 developments.

Outside projects have faced increasingly strident opposition in response to their enormous consumption of water for cooling. The company says in its lease application materials that its North Slope location is a “crucial design advantage” because of an average annual temperature of 12F — allowing it to use air for cooling instead of depending on water.

Air cooling, the company says, is expected to reduce water consumption by 90% or more, “compared to industry norms.” Stak isn’t proposing any formal use for the project’s waste heat for now, but it says that “potential applications” include keeping greenhouses warm or supporting aquaculture.

One comparative disadvantage for Stak: It would be powering its computer infrastructure with fossil fuels. Some technology companies with carbon emissions targets are making efforts to run their data centers on non-fossil energy like nuclear power, wind and solar, though other projects have also tapped into natural gas.

Stak, in its application, says it’s monitoring developments in technology that could allow it to capture and store its carbon emissions. But at least initially, a dearth of infrastructure and a lack of understanding of the region’s geology for storing carbon are among the obstacles it faces, the company said.

Dunleavy’s administration, which has pushed to develop a data center industry in Alaska, has issued a preliminary, formal decision that the project is in the state’s “best interest” — a necessary step before it can issue the 50-year land lease that it’s currently considering.

The preliminary decision cites a peak construction workforce of 1,500 people, with some 60 permanent jobs that would be created by the project.

Stak will have to complete additional permitting before the project can move forward — namely, a federal Clean Water Act authorization needed to create the company’s gravel pad that will elevate its power plants and computer systems at least five feet off the tundra.

The project would require an enormous amount of gravel — some 7 million cubic yards worth, according to the state leasing documents.

That’s nearly twice as much as petroleum company ConocoPhillips is authorized to use for its big Willow oil project, Stak says.