Let’s keep this foreign aid spending in perspective. What is spent can be very important to people in desperate situations while it is insignificant in terms of US federal spending.
The ongoing claims of waste and fraud in government, the quest to cut government activity, to use a chainsaw to cut spending and prioritize American interests are shortsighted.
You don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Look up this medieval idiom if you don’t get it.
Foreign aid spending has ranged between 0.7% and 1.4% of the total federal budget since 2001.
Recent actions have led to significant cuts in U.S. foreign aid. A bill signed in July 2025 canceled approximately $9 billion in previously approved funding for foreign assistance programs. The administration has also proposed a 2026 budget that would drastically reduce overall foreign affairs funding, with a request to cut more than $30 billion from foreign aid.
These cuts have been implemented through a combination of executive actions and legislation.
The administration issued a “stop-work order” that froze payments for existing foreign aid projects and has been a primary driver behind the dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which had a major role in distributing foreign assistance. Many of USAID’s contracts have been terminated, and some of its remaining functions are being transferred to the Department of State.
The rescission package, signed into law, specifically targeted several areas. A large portion of the cuts affected development assistance, humanitarian aid, and global health programs. Some specific examples of cuts include:
Approximately $4.15 billion in funds intended to boost economies and democratic institutions in developing countries.
$800 million for a program that provides emergency shelter, water, and sanitation to people displaced by conflict or disasters.
$496 million for food, water, and healthcare in countries impacted by natural disasters.
Cuts to programs for global health, including a proposed $1.8 billion cut to the PEPFAR HIV initiative and the elimination of funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
While some lawmakers have expressed concerns about the impact of these cuts on U.S. global influence and humanitarian efforts, proponents of the cuts argue they are necessary to reduce wasteful spending and prioritize American interests.
Arguments for the Value of Foreign Aid:
National Security: Foreign aid is seen as a vital tool for national security. By addressing root causes of instability such as poverty, weak institutions, and humanitarian crises, aid can help prevent the rise of extremism, conflict, and terrorism. For instance, former Defense Secretary James Mattis famously stated, “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.” Aid can also strengthen allies and partners, allowing them to better address their own security challenges.
Economic Prosperity: Foreign aid can create economic benefits for the U.S. by fostering stable and growing economies abroad. This creates new markets for American goods and services, leading to increased trade and job creation at home. In fact, many of the U.S.’s top trading partners today were once recipients of American foreign aid.
Global Health and Humanitarian Concerns: A significant portion of U.S. foreign aid is dedicated to global health initiatives, such as combating infectious diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. These programs not only save lives abroad but also help to prevent the spread of diseases that could pose a threat to the U.S. The U.S. also provides crucial humanitarian assistance in response to natural disasters and conflicts, which builds goodwill and demonstrates American values.
Diplomatic Influence and “Soft Power”: By providing assistance, the U.S. can build positive relationships and gain influence with other nations. This “soft power” can be more effective than military force in advancing U.S. foreign policy goals, such as promoting democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. It also helps to counter the influence of rival powers like China and Russia.
Arguments Against the Value of Foreign Aid:
Ineffectiveness and Corruption: Critics argue that foreign aid is often ineffective and can be wasted due to corruption in recipient countries. They contend that aid can prop up corrupt governments, delay necessary economic reforms, and fail to reach the people who need it most.
Domestic Priorities: A common argument is that money spent on foreign aid should be redirected to domestic needs, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Dependency: Some believe that foreign aid creates a cycle of dependency, where recipient countries become reliant on external assistance instead of developing their own sustainable economic and social systems.
A large portion of foreign aid is not a transfer of cash. It often takes the form of goods and services provided by U.S. companies and NGOs, and it is subject to oversight and monitoring to ensure it is used for its intended purpose.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 