Hamilton on Foreign Policy #267: Reform foreign aid; don’t abandon it By Lee Hamilton - April 9, 2025
Foreign
aid is an easy target when people say they want to cut government
spending. It makes sense that we should take care of Americans who are
struggling before we share resources with other countries. Charity
begins at home, as they say.
That may help explain why President
Donald Trump and his adviser Elon Musk, when they set out to
dramatically shrink the federal government, started by dismantling the
U.S. Agency for International Development, the primary entity for
delivering foreign assistance.
But slashing foreign aid is
wrong-headed for several reasons. First, foreign aid is a key tool of
foreign policy. It’s not just charity. It’s how we exercise “soft
power,” maintaining relationships and strengthening our influence around
the world. It includes not only food, housing and disaster assistance
but promotion of democracy and human rights. It also benefits our own
economy by expanding markets for our farmers and manufacturers.
USAID
was created in 1961, under President John F. Kennedy, partly to compete
with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Today, as then, if
we don’t invest in foreign aid, our rivals will. As America turns
inward, China sees openings to extend its influence.
Second, we
should provide aid because it’s the right thing to do. We are, by many
measures, the wealthiest and most powerful country in history. Helping
people who are in need aligns with our values as a nation. We can’t fix
all the world’s problems, but we can and should be a force for good.
Finally,
the appeal of cutting foreign aid derives from a series of myths. The
most persistent is that we spend a lot more money on foreign aid than we
do. Polls find that a plurality of Americans think foreign aid accounts
for between one-fourth and one-third of government spending. In fact,
it’s only about 1%.
It’s also common to hear that other nations
should take on a larger share of providing foreign aid. It’s true that
the United States provides more aid than any other nation, but that’s
primarily because of our size and wealth. According to the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development, we spend 0.24% of our gross
national income on overseas aid. That’s near the bottom of OECD
countries, far less than Norway, Germany and the United Kingdom.
A
common criticism is that foreign aid is squandered by corrupt or
unstable governments. Yes, we should do our best to get aid to people
who need it most. However, most American foreign assistance is delivered
by nonprofits, including faith-based organizations, and by partnerships
with businesses. Only a small share passes through foreign governments.
There
are also questions about whether the hundreds of billions of dollars
spent on foreign aid has been effective. Are we creating sustainable
progress? Are we making people dependent on aid? These are legitimate
concerns, but foreign aid has accomplished a lot. The money that we have
spent has saved millions of people from hunger, provided relief from
droughts and floods, and reduced the incidence of deadly diseases,
sometimes dramatically.
Shutting down USAID will be a disaster,
especially for the people who rely on its programs. According to the New
York Times, American aid saves 1.65 million lives per year via HIV and
AIDS prevention and treatment, prevents 500,000 deaths by delivering
vaccines, and saves 550,000 people from starvation. It prevents hundreds
of thousands of deaths from malaria and tuberculosis. These aren’t just
statistics; they are people, many of them children.
None of this
is to suggest that foreign aid should be off-limits for criticism. Even
supporters say that aid programs can be prone to waste and
inefficiency. Those and other problems should be identified and
addressed. But shutting down aid will devastate vulnerable people, and
it will harm America. Foreign aid should be reformed, not eliminated.