Freezing Aid Will Undermine U.S. Interests

President Trump’s order to freeze U.S. foreign aid has been framed as a necessary step to prevent waste and put America first. According to polls, many Americans agree that aid should be cut to free up money for domestic priorities. Yet the reality is that foreign aid is one of the most effective and cost-efficient tools the United States has to advance its strategic interests. Cutting aid will weaken America’s global influence while handing key geopolitical advantages to rivals like China.

For decades, the United States has used aid to secure diplomatic support, strengthen alliances, stabilize regions, and open markets for American businesses. Research shows that U.S. development assistance compels recipients to support America’s agenda in the United Nations, promotes democracy, and opens the door for U.S. investment and trade. Aid also delivers vital benefits to recipient countries—it facilitates humanitarian assistance, supports essential services like health and education, and even contributes to economic growth. Given the benefits, aid also enhances America’s soft power: people in countries that receive U.S. aid tend to have a more positive perception of the United States and of the values associated with it.

Freezing aid will erode these benefits, both to poor countries and to the United States. Research has shown that rapid aid cuts can lead to civil conflict, erode public services, and make it impossible for people to meet their basic needs. Sure enough, the withdrawal of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is reportedly exacerbating famine in Sudan, preventing diagnosis of tuberculosis in Kenya, and undermining education for women in Afghanistan, among other things. As reports like these continue to come out, the United States should expect its global reputation and standing to deteriorate—particularly as USAID-funded media outlets lose ground in countries with few other independent media outlets.

Ironically, aid cuts will undermine several of the administration’s own stated priorities. Take migration: The Trump administration has promised to aggressively pursue border security and immigration restrictions, arguing that the United States cannot absorb more asylum seekers and economic migrants. Yet cutting aid to fragile regions in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East will only accelerate international migration. USAID has supported programs that improve economic stability, reduce corruption, and combat violence in Central American countries including Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Slashing these programs will only worsen desperation and instability, driving people toward the U.S. border—the exact scenario the administration claims to want to prevent.

Similarly, cutting aid threatens to undermine U.S. security interests. Much of America’s foreign assistance has supported military cooperation and counterterrorism with allied nations. A sudden freeze in funding for these programs will weaken America’s partners while destabilizing already fragile states, giving extremist groups opportunities to gain footholds.

Beyond weakening America’s strategic influence and soft power, eliminating aid will create power vacuums that other countries—especially China—are eager to fill. As the Trump administration pulls back U.S. aid programs, we should expect Beijing to step up its infrastructure investments and financial assistance to developing nations through the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and other efforts. China’s presence in developing countries is not new and its influence is already significant; but recent moves by the Trump administration will facilitate and accelerate China’s efforts to strengthen alliances, secure strategic resources, and gain influence in international institutions.

While aid programs clearly bring the United States benefits, sceptics might reasonably ask whether the return is worth the investment. After all, the United States has its fair share of problems at home, including chronic disease, poverty, and homelessness. Yet foreign aid is far cheaper than often believed, accounting for around 1 percent of the U.S. federal budget. For this investment, the United States enjoys a considerable return in geopolitical terms, but aid also produces tangible financial returns: most of America’s top export markets are or have been recipients of U.S. foreign aid, including countries like South Korea and Germany. Aid can be linked to billions of dollars in investment by U.S. companies and millions of American jobs. By contrast, cutting aid stands to exacerbate problems around the world, which may lead the United States to undertake far more costly interventions down the road.

Far from a giveaway, foreign aid is a smart investment in American influence, security, and economic well-being. By halting development assistance, the United States is not saving money or putting Americans first. It is making America weaker, undermining its own interests, and ceding ground to strategic competitors. If the United States wants to maintain its global leadership and protect its national security, it cannot afford to abandon one of the most effective tools it has. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze aid is not just shortsighted—it is self-defeating.

Jonas Gamso is an associate professor and the deputy dean of knowledge enterprise in the Thunderbird School of Global Management at Arizona State University. He is the author of “Foreign Aid and Strategic Foreign Policy” in The Oxford Handbook of Geoeconomics and Economic Statecraft.

Thumbnail credit: U.S. Agency for International Development (Flickr)