Post-Trump priorities: restoring “foreign aid” programs (4)

The third of the ten points that Dan Froomkin (1) has proposed as guidelines for a restoration of democratic governance is: Dan Froomkin, fourth goal: Is it time to start planning a post-Trump restoration?

Restart international aid.

“Foreign aid” is a constant gripe of conservatives, not just in the US but in European democracies as well. In opinion polls, the public typically assume that “foreign aid” as a percentage of the national budget at vastly higher than it actually is.

Early in the Trump 2.0 regime, the Administration cancelled numerous US humanitarian programs for other countries:

[The Trump 2.0 Administration] completely ended nearly 10,000 aid programs in one fell swoop — including those they had granted waivers just days earlier — saying the programs did not align with Trump’s agenda. The move consigns untold numbers of the world’s poorest children, refugees and other vulnerable people to death, according to several senior federal officials. Local authorities have already begun estimating a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

Part of the problem is that people know that the US is involved in supporting all over the world with huge military expenditures. But military support - whether it is the stationing of US troops, ships, and aircraft, or military aid given directly to other countries - is not officially considered “foreign aid.” And the disbursement of what is officially foreign aid is closely controlled and audited. (I’ll make a wild guess that such controls over those programs will be much weaker to nonexisstent under Trump 2.0)

Georg Ingram compiled a list several years ago for the Brookings Institution of typical criticisms based on misconceptions of “foreign aid”: (2)

Myth #1: America spends too much on foreign aid

Myth #2: Others don’t do their fair share

Myth #3: U.S. foreign aid is mainly backed by Democrats

Myth #4: Foreign aid goes to corrupt, wasteful governments

Myth #5: Foreign aid goes to autocratic governments

Myth #6: Foreign aid is wasted, inefficient, and produces no concrete results

Myth #7: Foreign aid is for the benefit of foreigners and not aligned with U.S. interests

Myth #8: Foreign aid is unpopular

Ingram summarizes the strange dilemma for supporters of actual foreign-aid programs:

While the term foreign aid is not popular and polling reveals that some feel our foreign policy is overextended, Americans support U.S. active engagement in the world. A substantial majority of those polled support working collaboratively with other nations.

Assistance for humanitarian purposes receives overwhelming approval, and support is strong for specific purposes such as improving people’s health, helping women and girls, educating children, and helping poor countries develop their economies. What receives less support is assistance for strategic purposes.

To change this situation, Democratic leaders and politicians will have to start highlighting specific programs and make a show of fighting to protect them so they can reframe the whole category of “foreign aid.”

In a 2024 update of the article, Ingram explains, among other things, “At $63 billion for fiscal year 2023, foreign aid is around 1% of the federal budget.” In that report, he notes:

The Marshall Plan in the early 1950s played a critical role in reviving the economies of Europe following World War II and is credited with helping to fend off communism in Western Europe.

The Green Revolution for which foreign aid in the 1960s financed agricultural research that produced new varieties of seeds, increased use of fertilizers, and improved farming practices that expanded agricultural output in developing countries, including moving countries in Asia from periodic bouts of hunger and famine to being agriculture exporters.

The U.S. PEPFAR program in a period of 20 years (2003-2023) has saved 25 million lives from HIV/AIDS and enabled 5.5 million babies to be born HIV-free. (3)

“Foreign aid” programs are an essential piece of US “soft power.” This doesn’t mean that they are never used for dubious purposes, which can and often does detract from their positive value. But programs that are sponsored and funded by the US that visibly save lives and improve people’s prospects in life are far cheaper and far more effective than, say, invading Mexico, Canada, Panama, and Venezuela or whoever Trump is threatening with military attack on any given day.

But “Peace President” Trump is far more committed to funding genocide in Gaza than reducing the spread of AIDS in Africa.

Notes:

(1) Froomkin, Dan (2025): Is it time to start planning a post-Trump restoration? Heads Up News 06/30/2025. <https://www.headsupnews.org/p/is-it-time-to-start-planning-a-post> (Accessed: 2025-03-08). (Accessed: 2025-03-08).

(2) Ingram, George (2019): What every American should know about US foreign aid. Brookings Institution 10/02/2019. <https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/> (Accessed: 2025-03-08). The bullet points here are direct quotes.

(3) Ingram, George (2024): What is US foreign assistance? Brookings Institution 09/12/2025. <https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-us-foreign-assistance/> (Accessed: 2025-03-08).