So here's something really strange to ponder. According to U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, the U.S. government is required to curb foreign aid when a country undergoes a coup. What happened in Zimbabwe is that military men in fatigues took over the State media at 4 AM and announced that Mugabe was under house arrest. Furthermore there was military control of key roads and government buildings. Ben Cardin (a democrat from Maryland) said "We obviously don't like coups". (
https://www.voanews.com/a/united-states-lawmakers-react-apparent-mugabe-ouster/4117649.html).
So, here's the crazy thing. According to the State Department, it's not a coup and government funding won't be stopped. I guess this has happened before:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/07/03/law-says-the-u-s-is-required-to-cut-aid-after-coups-will-it/There's so much crazy going on here I can't even begin to unpack it. First of all, did you know that American tax dollars were directly going to Mugabe? Second, isn't there some kind of oversight to determine what is and isn't a coup? Third, there should be a check in place. For every country that receives foreign aid, if after a coup, you would be willing to call it not a coup because the leader was so corrupt that everyone is glad to see him gone, then you probably shouldn't have given him foreign aid in the first place.
This gets even more balls-to-the-wall crazy when apparently Trump already tried to cut foreign aid to Zimbabwe back in August. Why he isn't able to do so now is beyond me, I think the career politicians are starting to wear him down.
Either way, this is a dangerous precedent to set. The United States have routinely ignored that law, yet it is one of the most sensible laws in the books. If I was Joe Zimbabwe, I'd start a class action lawsuit against the US.