Republican Candidates and the Future of U.S. Foreign Aid
United States foreign policy as we know it could be on the line in the next presidential election. For decades, the security and well-being of many countries has relied upon bipartisan support for foreign aid from the United States. However, this support is in jeopardy due to increasing isolationist rhetoric from Republican candidates for president, the likes of which the U.S. has not held since before World War II. Depending on the outcome of the election, the United States’ financial support for other countries could change substantially.
Vivek Ramaswamy at the 2022 AmericaFest. Image Credit: Flickr via Gage Skidmore
A Brief History of Foreign Aid
Foreign aid has held bipartisan support throughout American history. For many years, U.S. presidents have touted foreign policy approaches that place America at the forefront of the world stage, ranging from bipartisan support for President Truman’s Marshall Plan in 1948 to the Obama administration’s aid for Africa in their fight against Ebola. Most notably, President Jimmy Carter revolutionized U.S. approaches to aid programs by catalyzing widespread support of aid in developing countries to alleviate poverty, uphold human rights, and stop widespread human suffering. Accordingly, arguments against foreign aid in the United States are a relatively new phenomenon.
A Dutch parade in 1951 thanking the United States for economic assistance following World War II. Image Credit: Flickr via U.S. Embassy The Hague (OECD photos)
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February of last year, the Biden Administration and NATO allies pledged to send as much military aid as Ukraine needed to defend itself against the incursion. The U.S. government has since sent Ukraine over $75 billion worth of aid including weapons, training programs, agricultural supplies, and salaries for workers. Recently, after months of hesitancy, the White House supplied Ukraine with F-16 fighter jets despite continuous nuclear brinkmanship from Russia. Although the Biden administration has committed to helping Ukraine by any means necessary, the increasing financial burden of such a promise can be observed through changing American opinion on foreign aid.
The Republican Primary
Recent polls show waning support for President Joe Biden’s ‘blank check’ in military aid to Ukraine. Many Americans cite concerns over both Ukraine’s management of the funds and the belief that the money could be better spent domestically. Americans are also concerned that sending aid to Ukraine is increasing the federal deficit, and that drastic reductions are required to get the country back on track. With many Americans seeking respite from high inflation levels at gas stations and grocery stores, some attribute inflation to overspending on Ukraine and struggle to find justification for sending so much money abroad.
The concerns are undoubtedly warranted, as the U.S. federal deficit has been rising significantly in recent years. Economists are concerned that the growing level of debt might slow the economy, discourage investors and foreign partners, and raise interest rates. Lowering spending levels could lower the deficit, but there is no bipartisan consensus on which specific programs are worth cutting. Conversely, some economists believe that having a deficit doesn’t present a problem as long as strong economic growth continues.
In response to the public’s concerns about financing other countries, presidential candidates within the Republican party have promised to refocus on domestic issues if elected. In Milwaukee’s primary debate in August, Republican candidates pushed isolationist rhetoric and expressed desires to halt military aid to Ukraine and instead use the money to bolster border security and address other domestic issues. Florida Governor Ron Desantis claimed Europeans needed to “step up and do their job,” while Vivek Ramaswamy claimed funding Ukraine could exacerbate future conflicts with both Russia and China. Their fervent emphasis on ‘America first’ ideology is indicative of growing popular support for isolationism and a detachment from America’s long history of economic involvement abroad. In response to such rhetoric, policymakers and experts in foreign policy have come out to refute the claims of Republicans on the debate stage, reminding voters that U.S. foreign aid represents a significantly small portion of the country’s military spending and that sending aid enhances American credibility in preventing conflict with its adversaries.
U.S. President Joe Biden standing with NATO allies and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Image Credit: Flickr via North Atlantic Treaty Organization
An additional, evident disconnect exists between support for foreign aid packages in the United States Senate and the House of Representatives. In October of 2023, President Biden requested an aid package that supported the war in Israel, the war in Ukraine, and the security of the southern border. Infighting within the Republican party soon worsened the bill’s prospects for passage. Some House Republicans supported foreign aid for Israel but not for Ukraine, despite universal Republican backing in the Senate. Others were concerned about the overall level of spending, the amount of money allocated for Ukraine, and how the Ukrainian government has been managing its aid from the United States. The Ukraine issue presents a considerable hurdle for Republicans as they attempt to garner support ahead of the consequential 2024 elections.
The Implications of Defunding Aid Programs
Halting aid programs can have disastrous consequences for worldwide stability and the general welfare of endangered and impoverished populations, regardless of the target country and type of package. Many populations worldwide depend on humanitarian aid from the United States and reducing the funds would cause unnecessary suffering. Arguments for reducing aid also minimize the importance of worldwide stability for the United States' own national security.
USAID Administrator Samantha Power travels to Africa to discuss aid programs. Image Credit: Flickr via The U.S. Agency for International Development
A significant portion of U.S. foreign assistance is directed to humanitarian programs aimed at improving the living conditions of millions. For example, in Burkina Faso, disease, malnutrition, and other dilemmas result in thousands of avoidable deaths each year. USAID programs allocated more than $175 million in Fiscal Year 2021 to provide health programs and education, promote democratic values, and move the country’s markets closer towards self-determination. Countries like Burkina Faso depend on the United States for their well-being, economic development, and political stability, as the United States provides more foreign aid than any other country. USAID programs and contributions from other countries have caused a substantial fall in extreme poverty, lowered mortality rates in multiple demographic groups, and life expectancy to rise worldwide. Cuts to aid programs as a result of isolationist policies could be disastrous for many countries relying on aid from the United States.
Republicans’ proposed cuts to military aid have also raised concerns about the implications for U.S. security. The United States has vested interests in worldwide political stability and maintaining international norms of territorial sovereignty, having long upheld the sanctity of international borders. Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated in June of this year that allowing Russia to keep the land it stole from Ukraine would undoubtedly encourage other aggressors around the world and undermine Ukraine’s right to sovereignty. As such, the right to territorial sovereignty under international law may be debilitated without military aid programs.
In addition, as the richest country in the world with many trade agreements, the stability of the world economy is vital to U.S. economic prosperity. Investing in foreign military capabilities can work to preserve international markets and ensure trade operations continue smoothly, benefitting domestic markets at home. Lastly, as the most powerful member of the NATO military alliance, the United States hopes to avoid military aggression near NATO territory. Sending military aid to Ukraine is seen as an investment by some experts because it requires no direct engagement of U.S. forces and is a precaution against an expanded war. They claim that the instability in this region would continue without U.S. foreign aid, so it is better to address it in a way that doesn’t put American troops in harm's way.
The United States has a personal stake - exacerbated by recent years’ trends of international terrorism - in humanitarian efforts as a means of curbing violent extremism around the world. Many cases of violent extremism typically stem from the failure of foreign governments to provide basic services to their citizens, inspiring dissatisfied, radical groups to take up arms. For example, a lack of education or impoverished conditions can radicalize groups who feel violence is the only feasible means of fostering change. USAID’s 2020 strategy for countering extremism determined that addressing the root causes of instability through investments in education, humanitarian programs, and local political systems can preemptively intervene in the recruitment process for extremist groups, making the United States safer. The implementation of Republican-proposed cuts raises concerns about the potential impact on the effectiveness of the strategy to counter violent extremists.
Isolationism’s Viability
Proponents of isolationist policies have previously touted the benefits of staying out of dangerous foreign commitments. For instance, following World War I in 1920, President Woodrow Wilson failed to convince isolationist holdouts in Congress to join the League of Nations, a postwar international organization designed with collective security agreements to prevent another world war. Opponents of the membership made arguments very similar to those made by Republicans in the present day: that foreign involvement could risk involving Americans in otherwise avoidable conflicts, and that the money required for foreign involvement could be better spent domestically on infrastructure and economic development.
Without the participation of the United States, a significant military and economic power at the time, the legitimacy of the League of Nations dwindled and ultimately failed to prevent another world war in 1939 that resulted in over 300,000 American combat deaths and a direct attack on American soil. Since this catastrophic failure, many have cast doubt on the assumption that decreased foreign involvement naturally makes the United States safer.
In the 21st century, the onset of the 2008 financial crisis revealed the extensive connections and reliances between the United States and the global economic community. Downturns in the U.S. housing market spurred by needless risk-taking, lax regulations, and increased borrowing ultimately led to cataclysmic crises spreading through the world economy. As a result, millions lost their livelihoods, and 100 million people fell below the poverty line. The case had been made that the United States was intrinsically involved in world affairs and had a complex, multifaceted economic relationship with other states.
Isolationism may not live up to its promises from the 20th century, as U.S. national security systems and humanitarian support for millions of people around the world depends on American foreign aid. The next presidential election has the potential to fundamentally alter U.S. interactions abroad and the country’s relationship with vulnerable populations. It is imperative that voters consider the far-reaching implications of foreign aid policy as they cast their ballots; their decisions could shape the United States’ commitment to a more peaceful and prosperous world.