Written by Elizabeth Matta
Since the recent change in the executive office, federal layoffs and cutbacks have impacted numerous government agencies. One agency that has received significant coverage in the news recently is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced through X on March 10, 2025 that the Trump administration is canceling 83% of programs supported by USAID and intends to fold the remaining ones under the State Department. (Hansler & Maher, 2025). This widespread defunding of USAID has created a notable pivot point for international aid and introduces speculations for what international aid will look like going forward.
Before exploring potential outcomes of international aid, it is necessary to understand the history and evolution of foreign assistance. The first major development of international aid was initiated in 1914, when President Herbert Hoover established the Commission for the Relief in Belgium (CRB) to provide food assistance to nine million Belgian and French civilians who lived in German-occupied territories during World War I (Little, 2014). Although the CRB concluded in 1919, President Hoover continued his developments that same year by creating the American Relief Administration (ARA) to provide food and medical relief to 17 European countries, particularly supporting Soviet-Russian civilians during the famine of 1921–1923 (Patenaude & Ertz, 2024). These programs were created with goals to alleviate suffering and demonstrate the superiority of the United States and American capitalism.
The next major development in the expansion of foreign aid was a result of World War II. The Lend Lease Program of 1941-1945, created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, allowed the United States to lend or lease weapons to other countries. During this time the Lend Lease Program supplied weapons to Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, Australia, New Zealand, and several other nations (Seidl, n.d.). In 1948, Secretary of State George Marshall proposed providing economic aid to European countries to rebuild after the war and eventually become trade partners with the United States. These new trade motivations marked a slight shift from previous justifications behind American foreign aid. President Harry S. Truman implemented this idea, named it the Marshall Plan, and according to Hoover fellows Peter Duignan and the late Lewis H. Gann, “formed the greatest voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another known to history,” (Duignan & Gann, 1997).
It wasn’t 1961 that USAID was finally established, with President John F. Kennedy searching for alternative solutions to the Cold War. He believed using weapons was not enough to fight against communism, but rather that the spread of economic aid and American ideals to countries searching for sovereignty would highlight the merits of American capitalism. This significant increase in international aid sparked a question in regard to its justification. As John Norris of the American Foreign Service Association puts it, “Is foreign aid an instrument of U.S. foreign policy, or is development in and of itself an important aim of U.S. policy?” (Norris, n.d.). This key question has become more prevalent than ever these past few weeks as the new executive administration decides on federal budget cuts.
One of the first government agencies to see the harsh realities of the federal budget cuts performed by the Department of Government Efficiency was USAID. Secretary of State Marco Rubio explains these cuts as necessary because, “we owe the American people the assurances that every dollar we are spending abroad is being spent on something that furthers our national interest” (Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a Tour of Aeroman, 2025). He set the criteria for foreign aid as follows: “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?” (Gettleman, 2025). Secretary Rubio’s remarks then beg the question: how much of taxpayer money is being sent abroad?
According to the Pew Research Center, the $71.9 billion in international aid spent in fiscal 2023 equates to about 1.2% of that year’s total federal budget (Desilver, 2025). Although this is a miniscule amount of the total federal budget, there is a significant misconception among Americans on how much the United States government spends on foreign aid. A national poll taken in 2010 shows Americans believe foreign aid is 25% of the federal budget and on average believe that only 10% of the federal budget should be spent on international aid (Paque, 2010). These misconceptions about how much the United States government spends on foreign aid could be contributing to a growing American sentiment to keep taxpayer money in the United States and to stop sending American funds overseas.
The justification for foreign aid has changed throughout history and will continue to change with new political climates. It is unlikely non-Western donors such as China and the United Arab Emirates will increase their contributions to fill this new gap, as they are often more interested in infrastructure and gaining political advantage. Moreover, even though Western donors tend to be more generous, it is unlikely they will fill the gap either as they have been cutting back contributions in recent years. “Sir Keir Starmer is slashing Britain’s aid budget by 40% in order to boost defence. France’s cash-strapped minority government plans to cut aid by more than a third this year, ” (Economist, 2025). As it is unlikely that other governments will fill this gap, will private donations increase given this shift in foreign aid political sentiment? Even if so, it is unlikely those donations would fill the gap from USAID cuts because in order to do so they would essentially need to double (Beaty, 2025).
If public and private donations will not cover these significant U.S. federally-funded aid cuts, perhaps countries receiving aid should prepare for long-term cutbacks. The Economist explains, “The pain will be excruciating, but the old era is not coming back. Governments and elites in poor countries must seize the moment to strengthen their own bureaucracies, improve governance and press ahead with growth-friendly reforms.” (Economist, 2025). Changes in political climates both in the United States and internationally appear to be creating a long-term decrease in foreign aid support. It is possible that international aid will continue in this direction until another major world humanitarian crisis takes place and changes public opinion. This raises the question: does another major event like the World Wars need to occur for government-backed foreign aid to return? The ongoing situation surrounding foreign aid provides an opportunity to research and establish which type of American aid is most successful and which is not based on how well countries manage amidst the defunding. Some might argue this method of research is cruel and unnecessary, while some will say it is warranted and justified when American taxpayer dollars are at stake. As events continue to unfold in coming weeks some of these questions may be answered.
References
Beaty, T. (n.d.). US foreign aid cuts leave a funding gap that private donors are unlikely to fill. Associated Press. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us-foreign-aid-cuts-leave-a-funding-gap-that-private-donors-are-unlikely-to-fill/ar-AA1As3d3
Desilver, D. (2025, February 6). What the data says about U.S. foreign aid. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/06/what-the-data-says-about-us-foreign-aid/
Duignan, P., & Gann, L. (1997, October 30). The Marshall Plan. Hoover Institution. https://www.hoover.org/research/marshall-plan
Gettleman, J. (2025, February 21). The Influence of Foreign Aid. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/21/briefing/the-influence-of-foreign-aid.html?searchResultPosition=6
Hansler, J., & Maher, K. (2025, March 10). Rubio says Trump administration canceling 83% of programs at USAID and intends to move remaining ones to State Department. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/10/politics/rubio-usaid-contracts-state-department/index.html
Little, B. (2014, October). Commission for Relief in Belgium (CRB). International Encyclopedia of the First World War. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/commission-for-relief-in-belgium-crb/
Norris, J. (n.d.). USAID at 60: An Enduring Purpose, a Complex Legacy. American Foreign Service Association. https://afsa.org/usaid-60-enduring-purpose-complex-legacy
Paque, J. (2010, December 3). Americans vastly overestimate U.S. foreign assistance. U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. https://www.usglc.org/blog/americans-vastly-overestimate-u-s-foreign-assistance/
Patenaude, B., & Ertz, S. (2024, November 12). American Relief Administration in Soviet Russia. Hoover Institution Library and Archives. https://guides.hoover.org/ARA_SovietRussia
Seidl, M. (n.d.). The Lend-Lease Program, 1941-1945. Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. https://www.fdrlibrary.org/lend-lease
Staff Sgt. Lundborg, C. (2019). U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) workers. Defense Visual Information Distribution Service. https://nara.getarchive.net/media/us-agency-for-international-development-usaid-workers-bf6afd
(2025, February 4). Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a Tour of Aeroman. U.S. Embassy in El Salvador. https://sv.usembassy.gov/remarks-by-secretario-rubio-at-aeroman/
(2025, March 6). The demise of foreign aid offers an opportunity. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/03/06/the-demise-of-foreign-aid-offers-an-opportunity