The Moral Imperative of American Foreign Aid
The current efforts by Elon Musk and former President Donald Trump to dismantle USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, have sparked intense debate about the role of foreign aid in advancing American interests. Advocates of USAID have traditionally framed their arguments around pragmatic benefits: foreign aid strengthens U.S. security, prevents global health crises like Ebola and bird flu, opens markets for American products, and counters China’s growing influence. These arguments are valid and critical, but they overlook a deeper, more compelling reason for U.S. investment in foreign aid—one rooted in the very identity of America itself. Foreign aid is not just a tool of diplomacy or economics; it is a reflection of America’s moral values of decency, generosity, and compassion. To abandon it is to abandon a part of what makes America unique.
A Legacy of Moral Leadership
Since World War II, every U.S. president, except Donald Trump, has used their inaugural address to champion foreign aid as a moral obligation. This tradition reflects a long-standing belief that America has a duty to help the world’s most vulnerable populations. Presidents from both parties emphasized that American greatness is not measured solely by military or economic might but by its willingness to act with empathy and kindness. Even during the Cold War, when foreign aid was often tied to strategic interests, the moral imperative remained a cornerstone of U.S. policy. This legacy began to erode with Trump’s election in 2016, as both policymakers and advocates grew hesitant to discuss altruism. President Joe Biden, for instance, made no mention of global poverty or humanitarian needs in his inaugural address. This shift represents a retreat from America’s historical identity as a force for good in the world.
The Rise and Fall of Pragmatic Argumentation
For years, advocates of foreign aid, including myself, focused on making the case for aid as a pragmatic tool for advancing U.S. interests. As the head speechwriter at USAID under the past two Democratic administrations, I emphasized how foreign aid protects Americans by preventing pandemics, creating new markets for U.S. goods, and countering geopolitical rivals. This strategy worked to some extent. During the Biden administration, Congress rejected the most severe proposed cuts to USAID’s budget, and the agency received unprecedented emergency funding to address crises like conflicts, climate disasters, and humanitarian emergencies. However, this approach has proven insufficient in the face of Trump, Musk, and their allies, who believe that foreign aid weakens America rather than strengthening it. Even former supporters, like Senator Marco Rubio, now actively undermine USAID. The pragmatic argument, while important, has failed to counter the growing hostility toward foreign aid.
The Cruelty of Cutting Foreign Aid
The consequences of dismantling USAID could be catastrophic. In 2011, a proposed 16% cut in foreign aid was estimated to result in the deaths of 70,000 children—more than the number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, the scale of the cuts proposed by Trump and Musk could lead to even greater suffering, particularly for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable populations. A federal judge has temporarily blocked their plan to gut USAID by putting staffers on leave, but the threat remains. By attacking foreign aid, Trump, Musk, and Rubio are not only harming millions of people around the world but also redefining what it means to be American. They are replacing the values of generosity and compassion with a petty, self-serving nationalism. Advocates of foreign aid must recognize that this is not just a policy debate but a moral one.
The Power of Moral Appeal
To save USAID and restore America’s moral leadership, advocates must shift their strategy. Instead of focusing solely on how foreign aid benefits the U.S., they should appeal to the country’s values of decency and compassion. Americans are an inherently charitable people, donating over $500 billion annually to causes they care about. While polling shows that a narrow majority supports cutting foreign aid in the abstract, they overwhelmingly back specific programs like disaster relief, food and medicine distribution, women’s education, and democracy promotion. This support is rooted in a moral belief that helping those in need is the right thing to do. A KFF poll found that only 25% of Americans cited economic or national-security interests as the primary reason for investing in global public health, while 46% said it was a matter of morality. This moral foundation is the strongest argument for foreign aid—one that Trump and Musk cannot easily dismiss.
Reclaiming America’s Moral Identity
There is a blueprint for reviving the moral case for foreign aid. During the Bush and Obama administrations, advocates emphasized America’s values over its interests, inspiring faith communities, young people, and even pop culture icons to rally behind global development. When a devastating earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, a telethon featuring stars like Beyoncé and Taylor Swift raised $61 million for relief efforts. Celebrities like Leonardo DiCaprio and Julia Roberts volunteered their time to support the cause. No one talked about security or prosperity; empathy was enough. Today, this kind of widespread moral urgency is missing. Republicans who once supported foreign aid have gone silent, and few faith leaders or celebrities are championing the cause. To reverse this trend, advocates must reclaim the moral high ground. By appealing to Americans’ hearts as much as their minds, they can remind the nation that foreign aid is not just a policy—it is a reflection of America’s soul. The fight to save USAID is not just about budgets or strategy; it is about whether America will continue to stand as a beacon of hope and compassion in a world that desperately needs it.
