“Six decades before Elon Musk decided to feed the US Agency for International Development ‘into the wood chipper’,” writes journalist David Pilling, “rich countries were questioning the efficacy — and even the point — of international assistance.”[1] He went on to note, “In 1961, a USAID report declared that South Korea, now one of the world’s most advanced economies, was ‘a rat hole [and] bottomless pit’ of aid. In 1968, a major report commissioned by the World Bank opened with the chapter ‘Aid in Crisis’ and concluded that there was waning support among donors and recipients alike. More recently, in 2009, Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian economist, argued in her book Dead Aid that Africa was ‘addicted to aid’ and that ‘the notion that aid can alleviate systemic poverty … is a myth’.” Pilling argues that the West’s increasing distaste for foreign aid could have serious consequences. He explains, “The west’s waning appetite for international assistance raises several questions, most immediately the impact on the world’s poorest and the possible implications for global health and security, including pandemic preparedness.”
Some scholars trace the beginnings of modern foreign aid to President Harry S. Truman‘s 1949 inaugural address. In that speech, he outlined four foreign policy objectives, including how the United States would help the world recover economically from the devastation created by the Second World War. He committed the United States to supporting freedom-loving nations against outside attack. And, in the area of foreign aid, he stressed that America’s future depended on the development of the underdeveloped world. Truman insisted, “Only by helping the least fortunate of its members to help themselves can the human family achieve the decent, satisfying life that is the right of all people. [And,] democracy alone can supply the vitalizing force to stir the peoples of the world into triumphant action, not only against their human oppressors, but also against their ancient enemies-hunger, misery, and despair.”[2]
Over the subsequent decades, a supply chain evolved to help deliver necessary goods to those in need. The foreign aid supply chain involved planning, procurement, storage, transport, and delivery of resources like food, medicine, and other essential items from donors to beneficiaries in developing countries, often in response to emergencies or for long-term development projects. The conditions prompting donors to offer aid are not going away; however, the reduction of U.S. foreign aid could end up dismantling the critical foreign aid supply chain. That result could prove devastating for Americans as well as aid recipients.
The Moral Dimensions of Foreign Aid
The late British economist Hans W. Singer wrote, “In the ethics of aid there are two separate problems. The first concerns the motives or reasons for which aid is given. Are they in the field of ethics, i.e. aid given for humanitarian or charitable reasons or because of a sense of global responsibility (all of which are presumably in the field of morals or ethics)? Alternatively, is aid given for reasons of self-interest or politics (both of which presumably would not qualify as moral)? The second problem relates to the effects of aid rather than its motives. If the aid is both intended to be and is effective in reducing the poverty of poor people, feeding hungry children, coping with emergencies, or helping a struggling poor country to make better provision for its citizens, then presumably there is a strong moral basis and moral justification for this aid. On the other hand, if the aid is both clearly given for reasons of politics or self-interest and if its effect is to help an oppressive and vicious government to maintain its control over its citizens with widespread violation of human rights, then such aid would clearly be immoral or at least non-moral.”[3] Singer acknowledged, however, that there are mixed cases. Truman acknowledged the reality that foreign aid is not strictly for moral purposes when he argued that helping other countries was in America’s best interests.
Stephen Andrew Langeland, a researcher at Liberty University’s Helms School of Government, notes, “Moral arguments for foreign aid are regularly made by many notable voices in the public square. President Barrack Obama stated his approval of aid, saying that ‘as the wealthiest nation on Earth, I believe the United States has a moral obligation to lead the fight against hunger and malnutrition, and to partner with others.’ Similarly, his predecessor President George W. Bush proclaimed, ‘I believe that spending less than two-tenths of 1 percent of our federal budget to save millions of lives is the moral, the practical and in the national security interests of the United States.’ Bill and Melinda Gates stated ‘disease and poverty are the clearest examples we know of solvable human misery, and the moral case for wiping them out is clear on its face. The lives of millions and the livelihoods of billions depend on the programs that American foreign aid supports,’ adding that ‘spending a little to keep a child healthy isn’t only a moral imperative; it is also a long-term investment in a secure and thriving world.’ The Roman Catholic Church likewise published a catechism declaring the ethical nature of aid: ‘Rich nations have a grave moral responsibility toward those which are unable to ensure the means of their development by themselves.'”[4]
Like Singer, Langeland argues that both moral and objective judgments need to be made when it comes to foreign aid. He explains, “While it is understandable for proponents of aid to desire to bring resources to bear in the immediate to combat the very real suffering of those in extreme poverty, contemporary aid practices must be rigorously analyzed for moral and philosophical consistency to ensure that aid activities ‘do no harm.’ … The stated ideals and virtuous desire to help impoverished people in the developing world in the immediate is understandable. However, the principled concerns for individual rights and liberties and the desire to avoid harmful outcomes must be at the heart of modern foreign aid practices. Any implementation of aid that ignores the human dignity of recipients and perpetuate ongoing oppressive practices in recipient countries must be altered or ended immediately. … Morally corrupt means cannot justify or lead to ethical outcomes and undermine the claim of aid being a moral necessity.” Langeland believes, “Economists are uniquely positioned to assist in the rational study of various styles of interventions which can lead to the most effective and least-centralized methods of poverty alleviation that will enable aid efforts to maintain moral consistency and avoid harm throughout the financial transfer.”
In his 15 January 2025 opening remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio basically argued there was no moral basis for foreign aid. He stated, “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, every policy we pursue must be justified by the answer to one of three questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”[5]
The Fate of USAID
When Elon Musk shuttered the United States Agency for International Development, he called the agency “a viper’s nest of radical-left Marxists” and “a criminal organization” working against American interests. That depiction of the agency flies in the face of facts. As Andrew Natsios, former head of USAID under President George W. Bush and currently a professor in Texas A&M University’s George H.W. Bush School of Government and Public Service, notes, “It’s utter nonsense. The most accountable aid agency in the world is USAID. I have written widely on this subject. Forty percent of the staff are accountants and lawyers and people trying to make sure no money is stolen. We’ve created systems to monitor that. What [DOGE} did was, they went back 20 years to try to find things, if you have to go back 20 years to find abuse, that means there isn’t that much abuse. … The question is why did the Congress approve all these contracts, and grants, and programs all these years? Why did OMB approve them? Why did the State Department F Office? The F Office controls all foreign aid spending. Every line item in the USAID budget is approved by three different bodies, the F Office, OMB and the congressional oversight committees, of which there are four. Four! No one caught all these horrible abuses? That’s just not believable.”[6]
Even though foreign aid began with a democratic president, Harry S. Truman, it has traditionally been a non-partisan issue. Liz Schrayer, President and CEO of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC), once observed, “President George W. Bush … [was] one of the greatest champions for global health, helping to save more than 13 million lives by launching PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) and the malaria relief program. His leadership in establishing the Millennium Challenge Corporation raised the bar for strengthening foreign assistance effectiveness.”[7] She argued that foreign aid is in America’s best interests because it supports America’s engagement overseas in three ways:
● National security: “The military alone cannot keep us safe.”
● Jobs and the economy: “95 percent of consumers live outside the United States.”
● Moral leadership: “America is that shining city on the hill.”
She concluded, “There is no shortage of political challenges in the coming months and years. In addition to the proposed cuts, polls taken year after year still underscore the misinformation about the size of the small 1 percent of the federal budget that is dedicated to foreign assistance. Most surveys suggest that Americans believe aid accounts for more than a quarter of the federal budget.” Nevertheless, she noted there were still many people who understand “the stakes of America’s global leadership and the value of foreign assistance are speaking up — educating, engaging, and mobilizing. Members of Congress are not naïve — they see the complexities of the world, from threats of pandemics to famine to terrorism. Yet sometimes they also need a political embrace and a ‘thank you’ for their leadership.”
Some of the biggest losers among foreign aid supply chain stakeholders look to be U.S. farmers. Journalists Lisa Baertlein, Leah Douglas, and Tom Polansek talked to sources in the foreign aid supply chain who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. Those sources insisted, “The freeze in purchases of wheat, soybeans and other commodities produced by U.S. farmers could hinder or halt the operations of organizations that provide millions of tons of food each year to help alleviate poverty in countries such as Madagascar, Tanzania and Honduras. … It also means added pain for U.S. farmers, already facing low commodity prices and uncertainty from potential tariffs in an emerging trade war, and who see foreign aid programs as opportunities to promote their farm products abroad.”[8]
Concluding Thoughts
Finding anybody in government to thank for their support of foreign aid is going to be difficult in the years ahead. In a recent article, Mukesh Kapila, a retired professor from the University of Manchester, provided a hard-headed, realistic look at foreign aid. At the end of his article he noted, “Public perceptions are unhelpfully skewed. Americans think that 25 per cent of their federal budget goes on foreign aid when the true figure is one per cent. Well-meaning advocates trying to reverse Mr. Trump’s policy play straight into the ‘America First’ camp by arguing that reducing food assistance harms farmers in Iowa and Kansas. Or that reducing aid harms US influence and advances rival China. Technocratic and bureaucratic reforms to improve efficiency are of little utility when ‘my country first’ attitudes instrumentalize aid. Not only by Americans but by most donors. Correction demands restoring the moral justification for aid as selfless outreach to the needy — anywhere and everywhere. That appears idealistic under the current scenario, but the long journey must start.”[9] Eliminating foreign aid does not improve national security, the economy, or America’s reputation in the world. Let’s hope the State Department, the new home of U.S. foreign aid, comes to this same conclusion and America finds a way to restore its moral leadership in the world.
Footnotes
[1] David Pilling, “Can international aid survive in a crumbling world order?” Financial Times, 4 March 2025.
[2] Staff, “The Challenge of International Aid,” Harry S. Truman Library.
[3] Hans W. Singer, “The Ethics of Aid” in Moorhead Wright (editor) Rights and Obligations in North-South Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1986.
[4] Stephen Andrew Langeland, “Economists’ Moral Reasoning on Foreign Aid,” Liberty University, February 2022.
[5] Thérèse Boudreaux, “Rubio: U.S. foreign policy must serve national interests,” The Center Square, 15 January 2025.
[6] Scott Pelley, “With the dismantling of USAID, is the Trump administration defying the Constitution?” CBS 60 Minutes, 16 February 2025.
[7] Liz Schrayer, “The politics of foreign aid,” The Brookings Institution, 31 July 2017.
[8] Lisa Baertlein, Leah Douglas and Tom Polansek, “Exclusive: US food purchases for foreign aid halted despite waiver,” Reuters, 5 February 2025.
[9] Mukesh Kapila, “Restoring foreign aid’s moral purpose is the right response to Trump,” Mukesh Kapila webpage, 28 February 2025.
