The significance of U.S. foreign aid

With the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, and the unprecedentedly disruptive actions taken by DOGE and President Trump in the name of government efficiency, one agency in particular has faced a bevy of attacks on their programs and mission: USAID.

The actions taken by DOGE warrant scrutiny, but the goals of enhancing government efficiency, reducing bureaucratic waste, and reducing the complexity and scope of the federal government should not be dismissed — they are ultimately critical for the sustainability and efficacy of the United States. However, they must be achieved legally and constitutionally, and disruption and disarray should be avoided because — unlike what some rhetoric suggests — they are not necessary to achieve these goals; they are, however, very harmful to Americans and to the integrity of established systems that employ Americans and help people around the globe. With that said, I do not want to debate the legality or intention of DOGE’s actions, which will be done elsewhere by those who can make a real difference by doing so. I simply want to discuss the reasons why, as we strive for government efficiency and focus on serving American interests with taxpayer dollars, that the activities of USAID and other overseas work are valuable, legitimate, serve American interests and are worth preserving as we move through this process.

In the House Oversight Committee Hearing on Feb. 5, 2025, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) said that USAID has “pillaged and plundered the American Treasury… funding some of the dumbest… initiatives imaginable,” listing several USAID projects that she deemed did not advance America’s interests abroad. While debate over the justification of individual programs and funding amounts can and should occur, one of her examples stood out to me: “USAID awarded $28 million to a group to facilitate the economic insertion of Venezuelan migrants and refugees in Peru and Ecuador.” Though none of the witnesses — Gov. Kim Reynolds of Iowa, President of Citizens Against Government Waste Thomas Schatz, Dr. William G. Resh of University of Southern California — said that this advanced U.S. interests, I disagree.

Immigration is and always has been a major concern for the United States, as it is for many countries. Immigration is an important foundation of the economic success and cultural fabric of this country, but it can be disruptive and disconcerting and is certainly burdensome on our government resources: visa processing, border control, ICE, etc. South American countries like Venezuela pose the greatest risks to the United States in terms of immigration due to their contiguity and proximity to the U.S. Their consistent issues with cartels, inflation, and government instability frequently endanger the lives and livelihoods of the people living there, encouraging them to flee to the U.S. in search of safety and stability. A program which facilitates the settlement and economic insertion of Venezuelan migrants in other South American countries is a proactive tool to prevent immigration crises in the United States by helping these migrants go somewhere else. This reduces the burden on our immigration services and meets the demands of the American people, who have expressed their concern about the quantity and character of immigrants both legal and illegal. Thus, it does advance American interests and is an illustrative example of the benefit of international development and foreign aid.

According to usa.gov, “The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is the principal U.S. agency to extend assistance to countries recovering from disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms.” Today, I feel that many Americans struggle to understand the benefit of this mission for the United States because they focus only on the immediate step: providing money, goods, and services to non-Americans. With plenty of American citizens facing poverty and similar challenges of their own, they feel that money shouldn’t be spent abroad, but at home, and resent this practice. While it may be true that a reallocation of funding might help to address the struggles of everyday Americans, this view fails to consider that at home, the U.S. government has far more tools that they could use to address poverty, poor health, failing infrastructure, et cetera, which would be more effective, equitable, and sustaining. For example, the tax structure, government contracts, labor regulations and more can be adjusted to address the root of the issues, rather than the symptoms. Additionally, we must consider that foreign aid spending across all agencies and departments constitutes only a fraction of the government budget and costs less than $125 per capita. In FY2024, U.S. foreign aid disbursements totaled $41 billion, less than 1% of federal spending ($4.9 trillion), and far less than that of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, and Agriculture, which fund similar projects at home. Rather than decry that international development takes money away from deserving Americans, ask why Americans need such money in the first place and realize that domestic problems can be solved by more than just money (re)allocation.

However, this still leaves the question: Why is it beneficial for the United States to invest money in other countries at all? Aside from being able to thwart problems abroad before they reach America’s doorstep, as detailed above, there are two other main reasons. First, America relies on and benefits from the export markets and partnerships that can only be provided by healthy, stable, secure countries. This is the exact reason why the United States invested in the rehabilitation of Europe, Japan and South Korea after World War II. By helping other countries strengthen their economies, care for their citizens, and build their infrastructure, the United States fosters consumer markets for American export goods, safe travel destinations for American tourists, capable military partners for American defense, strong infrastructure for transport of American goods, and stable markets for American investment ventures to enrich American citizens.

Secondly, these same actions generate incredible goodwill for the United States that is critical for the advancement of American interests on the world stage and maintaining America’s national security. As a point of fact, having more friends than enemies will always make the United States safer and more powerful; when a genuine threat to American supremacy is posed by a country like China, it is the relationships with other countries which will temper that threat. There is no stronger way to garner appreciation, admiration, and loyalty to the United States than by putting Americans on the ground, helping people and making their communities stronger. Sending dedicated, intelligent, compassionate Americans to make indelible impressions on the people they meet, serve and collaborate with abroad fosters gratitude and relationships that are invaluable to American national security. This same impact cannot be achieved by any American brand name products, entertainment media, economic policies, or charismatic political leaders.

Finally, although the benefits to national security are useful and important, there is one final reason why USAID and similar initiatives exist: generosity. President John F. Kennedy created USAID in 1961, along with the Peace Corps; both initiatives were a way for the United States to pass it forward to countries seeking freedom, as we had done. In the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy said: “we stand ready now, as we have in the past, to provide generously of our skills, and our capital, and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom — to help them before they are engulfed in crisis.” Strategic as it may have been for the United States, I believe it also reflected the deep philanthropic ethos of the American people, who historically have valued helping one another, and so too wished to help those overseas.

Until now, it has been a source of pride that it was our flag they flew alongside their own, our name and symbols on their new schools, hospitals and highways; our people they thanked and our generosity they praised. What saddens me most about the attitude displayed today regarding USAID and other international development, is the deeply selfish nature that it demonstrates — which I hope and believe does not reflect the true character of the American people. Heretofore, the United States has been guided by a sense of mission and magnanimous spirit, which has never ignored the suffering of others in the name of our own wellbeing. A call for America First may be warranted under current circumstances, but does not, and should not become America Only. As President George H.W. Bush said in his inaugural address, “America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the Nation and gentler the face of the world. My friends, we have work to do.” And so, we do still. 

Peyton Pangburn is a U.S. Fulbright Grantee in Moldova. She is a University of Iowa graduate from Northwood.

CLARIFICATION: Dr. William Resh would like it clarified that he answered ‘No Opinion’ in response to Rep. Mace’s question about the USAID program, due to insufficient information on the subject. He does not want this interpreted as a denial of the legitimacy of the USAID program in question, as compared to the responses of the other witnesses, who both answered "No." No witnesses answered "Yes" in response to Rep. Mace’s question about whether this USAID program advanced America’s interests.