The conversation surrounding American foreign assistance is heating up, and a recent tweet by @EricLDaugh captures the growing discontent: “Let’s stop funding all other countries. We need help here.” This highlights a sentiment gaining traction, especially as financial strains felt by everyday Americans underscore the need for a shift in priorities.
In 2024, the U.S. allocated a staggering $63.3 billion in official development assistance. This accounts for nearly 30% of all global government aid. Of this vast sum, over 40% was earmarked for humanitarian needs, while another 42% funded global health programs. These figures raise eyebrows when juxtaposed with the pressing issues American families currently face—rising prices, flat wages, and accumulating debt.
The stark contrast between massive foreign expenditures and ongoing domestic hardships speaks volumes. Infrastructure is crumbling, border states are feeling overwhelmed, and veterans are struggling with inadequate services. Yet billions continue to flow overseas to programs that, while well-intentioned, provide little visible benefit to those who ultimately pay for them—the American taxpayers.
Past efforts to respond to international disasters highlight the complexities involved. The U.S. stepped up to the plate after Hurricane Melissa struck Jamaica in 2019, rapidly mobilizing resources despite having limited USAID staff. The response included sending helicopters, Marines, and rescue teams, amounting to $37 million in aid across the Caribbean. As President Trump stated, “We have to… on a humanitarian basis, we have to.” Coordination on the ground among various partners showcased America’s willingness to respond to such crises. Yet, as streets were cleared in Jamaica, the question remains—what about the crumbling roads back home?
America continues to be a leading donor in global health initiatives. The Global Fund recently aimed to raise $18 billion but achieved only $11.34 billion in its 2023 replenishment cycle. The U.S. pledged $4.6 billion, a significant contribution, but still a reduction from prior commitments. Jeremy Lewin from the State Department pointed out that “the best days of America’s health care leadership are yet ahead,” emphasizing the importance of international partnerships. However, one must ask what is “critical” about prioritizing global health while domestic needs like affordable prescription drugs, backlogged veterans’ services, and heating assistance for seniors remain unmet.
The Biden administration’s request for $64.4 billion in foreign assistance for FY2025 reflects a recognition of budget limitations, with cuts impacting several areas, including global health. Notably, contributions to the Global Fund dropped significantly. Still, other programs continue to receive substantial funding, such as the $500 million allocated to the Green Climate Fund and the $1 billion designated for the World Bank, primarily for international development loans. This level of spending prompts critics to question whether the U.S. should take a step back.
Bill Steiger, a former USAID chief, noted the shift toward more bilateral agreements, indicating that countries must start sharing the burden. He pointed out, “The most important innovation…is asking other countries…to do their share.” Despite acknowledging the strain on resources, the shift suggests a move toward accountability. Yet, African experts convey apprehension about decreasing U.S. support. Dr. Sam Oti urged African nations to unify on acceptable terms, expressing concern that reduced aid could weaken their bargaining power.
Amid this escalating tension, skepticism among Americans is on the rise. A Federal Reserve official recently warned about economic vulnerabilities, including threats to working families’ financial stability. The struggle between prioritizing international aid and addressing domestic needs is palpable. Congress faces mounting pressure as the FY2024 foreign aid appropriations experience delays amid debates over where taxpayer dollars should be directed—toward border security or health clinics abroad.
Even though foreign assistance comprises less than 1% of the federal budget, it still translates into tens of billions annually. This amount could significantly benefit domestic needs, such as repairing deteriorating infrastructure, enhancing social security, or supporting farmers facing environmental challenges. Proponents of foreign aid argue for its role in fostering global stability and preventing future crises. However, this belief hinges on the assumption that funds are utilized effectively. Many assistance initiatives encounter transparency issues and staffing shortages, raising doubts about the efficacy of such programs. As Steiger pointed out, “they need help,” referring to partners overseas—and the same could certainly be said for the veterans awaiting care back home.
New forms of foreign assistance, like support for refugees, are also grappling with severe funding gaps. The UNHCR is facing a $6 billion shortfall, resulting in significant layoffs. As global issues like the abduction of Nigerian schoolchildren escalate, calls for increased American funding become louder. Yet, these developments only serve to deepen the discontent felt domestically regarding America’s financial commitments abroad.
Amidst urgent foreign responses, pressing domestic issues continue to persist. With collapsing roads, rising health care costs, and a homeless veteran population exceeding 60,000, the context behind @EricLDaugh’s call to “stop funding all other countries” becomes clear. For countless Americans, it is more than just a tweet; it is a plea to reconsider national priorities and ask how much longer America can bear the burden of extensive foreign aid amid significant domestic decay.
While foreign assistance may serve strategic interests, the ongoing dialogue challenges Washington to reevaluate its commitments. The pressing question remains: should military aid and international funding take precedence over repairing the foundational infrastructure here at home? Until priorities shift, the voices demanding change will only grow stronger.
"*" indicates required fields
