Trump review of foreign aid reopens debate: How reliable is the US?
Tucked away in last year’s $60 billion U.S. foreign aid budget was a $15 million drop in the ocean.
Literally. The money paid for projects in Pacific island nations to help them cope with rising sea levels caused by climate change.
Many American taxpayers might think this was just a do-good expenditure of no relevance to them.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused on
The temporary freeze in U.S. foreign aid, which sowed confusion and panic among U.S. aid agencies and foreign recipients alike, raises anew the issue of how, in a competitive world, Washington helps itself by helping others.
But the point of the budget line was not to be charitable. It rarely is with foreign aid. The underlying purpose was to further a long-term strategic goal – in this case, countering China’s rising dominance by making the United States the reliable partner of choice in the region.
Thousands of such U.S.-funded projects around the world – from counterterrorism projects in the Horn of Africa to women’s small-business development programs in Central America – have been left in limbo since Secretary of State Marco Rubio froze foreign aid and issued stop-work orders on projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Secretary Rubio said Jan. 24 he was launching a full review of the U.S. foreign aid budget – the world’s largest – to bring it in line with President Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
The order sowed confusion and panic among U.S. employees of government aid agencies and foreign recipients of aid alike – with some in the public health sector warning that lives would be lost because of the abrupt cutoff.
By Tuesday Secretary Rubio had issued a waiver exempting life-saving humanitarian assistance from the aid freeze.
“Good week for Russia and China”
Still, many experts are warning that even a temporary pause in foreign assistance programs is likely to have long-term implications for U.S. interests.
In a world of sharpening big-power competition, they say, any moves that damage America’s image as the reliable big-power partner are going to enhance the prospects of Washington’s major competitors.
“This has been a very good week for Russia and China,” says Jon Alterman, senior vice president for global security and geostrategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Suddenly the perception is that the U.S. government is the chief driver of risk around the world,” he says, “and that can’t help but encourage countries to look elsewhere for stability and partnerships.”
“I can’t imagine China and Russia aren’t going to try to capitalize on this,” he adds.
Incoming administrations often undertake reviews of foreign aid. It is unusual, on the other hand, to shut down all foreign assistance pending a monthslong review.
“This is a ‘stop and take a look’ [review] rather than a ‘keep it going while you take a look,’ which has generally been the approach before,” says a former Republican congressional staffer, who requested anonymity to speak openly.
That difference “has led to the sky-is-falling reaction we’re seeing now, but at the end of the day I think the freak-out mode will be more than the actual impact warrants,” the former specialist in foreign aid oversight says.
Charity versus core U.S. interests
Many international agencies and nongovernmental groups have already received funding to see them through the pause, the former staffer says. And the Biden administration front-loaded some funding in anticipation of this type of action.
But it is Washington’s long-term and reliable assistance programs that build up goodwill and trust, say people in the aid sector. Some experts cite as one example the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). The program to address HIV/AIDS was initiated by President George W. Bush and has maintained by every president since.
Such initiatives are not ultimately charity programs, says Dr. Alterman, who served on the State Department’s policy planning staff under President Bush. Almost without exception they serve core U.S. interests by furthering strategic goals and promoting U.S. values in a world of sharp values competition.
“The U.S. is not the world’s charity bank,” he says, “but when we help governments improve the lives of their people, over time that improves the lives of Americans as well.”
If PEPFAR reduces the number of AIDS cases in Africa, he says, that eventually reduces the number of cases in the U.S. – and saves American lives. (On Wednesday the U.S. waived the stop-work order on PEPFAR funding, at least temporarily.)
All sorts of U.S. aid programs have similar knock-on effects, Mr. Alterman believes. “You could argue that U.S.-funded water projects in Jordan have helped keep Jordan stable. And that in turn helps keep Israel secure, which has been a U.S. policy and strategic goal for decades.”
Preserving the “halo effect”
Some aid recipients will be “losers” after the review, says the former Republican congressional staffer. “But that is no different from any other administration’s review.”
Some foreign aid experts say that initiatives construed as promoting LGBTQ+ rights or migration in any way are very likely to be axed.
As for China, the former congressional staffer says there are good reasons to be concerned about Beijing’s growing influence, but that the U.S. foreign aid review is not one of them.
“If Beijing has more influence providing 5% of some U.N. aid agencies’ budgets than the U.S. has providing 25%, it’s appropriate to question why that is and to evaluate how to change that,” the former staffer says.
Dr. Alterman is less sanguine, fearing that any damage to Washington’s image is going to play into the hands of its adversaries.
“There is a halo effect that occurs because the U.S. has been helping people around the world lead better and healthier lives,” he says.
“If China is perceived as the one who is reliably helping governments and helping the people lead better lives, while the U.S. is browbeating governments and turning away from the people,” he adds, “that will inevitably have an impact – and probably one the U.S. doesn’t want.”
