President Trump has sent Congress a $9.4 billion
rescissions request. This provides Congress with the ability to cut previously authorized spending through an
expedited process.
The request seeks to withdraw over $8 billion allocated to foreign policy agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This is part of the administration’s
dramatic goals to reshape foreign policy, which includes eliminating the USAID apparatus and moving retained programs into the State Department.
There are many reasons why the proposed rescissions are sensible and why Congress should take additional steps to refocus foreign aid while saving taxpayers billions.
Handouts Fail to Solve Poverty
The final two words of USAID’s name (international development) represent the concept of improving the economic capacity of poorer countries to reduce global poverty. Since the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961 the federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars along those lines. While the goal is admirable, the method has a
dismal track record.
Nations that still suffer from widespread material deprivation are those with low levels of
economic freedom. Providing food, medical supplies, or infrastructure is woefully insufficient for solving poverty if the people lack property rights or the ability to start and operate a business.
Worse, prolonged delivery of foreign aid can undermine economic development. Not only does aid serve to blunt the consequences of misgovernance, but it can also crowd out local providers of goods and services who must compete with handouts.
Foreign Aid Warped by Leftist Ideology
The U.S. foreign aid complex has been plagued by capture from leftist special interests, a problem that escalated during the Biden administration. From boondoggles such as
$28 million for “renewable electricity” in Lebanon, to the promotion of racial, gender, and sexual manias, to the facilitation of illegal migration, and even the funding of
abortion, the Biden foreign aid agenda was
truly radical.
However, the experience under Biden was not unusual. Not only were these distortions present during the
Obama administration, but they are also
endemic to the constellation of non-governmental organizations that receive billions in foreign aid grants every year. Funding for “family planning” activity through the United Nations has a long and sordid history of paying for abortions. Masses of USAID employees have made
radical demands, shining a light on the agency’s biased internal culture.
It would be inappropriate to continue to provide billions of dollars in support for institutions that consistently promote values contrary to those of the American public.
Failed Foreign Policy Tool
Some defenders of massive foreign aid spending claim that it benefits foreign policy goals by building goodwill among nations receiving aid. With many years of United Nations votes to draw from it is clear that this is not the case: nations receiving the most aid typically
vote against the U.S. position, even in high-stakes matters.
In addition, America’s enemies often abuse the provision of aid, with notable examples being the Taliban in
Afghanistan and Hamas in
Palestine. Enriching terrorists is the opposite of ideal foreign policy.
Private Charity vs Deficit-Financed “Charity”
The existence of suffering often creates an empathetic reaction. Throughout history, alleviating extreme poverty has been a goal for religious and secular groups under the broad umbrella of charitable activity.
There is an important distinction to be made between private charity and governmental activity that appropriates the mantle of charity. When a government takes money by force and transfers it to someone else, that should not be called charity, especially in the
context of foreign aid.
With the United States facing
economic consequences of unsustainable federal spending, the notion of maintaining a large foreign aid budget is highly dubious. Further impoverishing future Americans in a futile attempt to end poverty across the world would be a disastrous mistake.
Congressional Action Needed: Rescissions and Appropriations
By enacting President Trump’s rescissions request, Congress would likely save billions of dollars this year. This would also encourage future rescissions requests that could yield even greater savings.
While enacting rescissions would send a healthy signal about Washington’s willingness to tackle wasteful spending, Congress should do the same in the upcoming
appropriations process. Approving the same bloated foreign aid budget as previous years would undermine the rescissions.
Congress has spent too long throwing around other people’s money with little concern for the good of the American public. The rescissions request is an opportunity to change course.
