Historical Context of U.S. Development Aid and Political Influence
The relationship between political administrations and foreign aid spending in the U.S. is complex and not easily predictable along party lines. While foreign aid is often seen as a Democratic priority, both parties have played significant roles in shaping U.S. aid policy over the decades.
For instance, Republican administrations have been key supporters of foreign aid at various points. During the Cold War, Reagan increased aid, viewing it as a tool to counter Soviet influence. George W. Bush further expanded aid with initiatives like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). These programs garnered bipartisan support, underscoring foreign aid as more than a partisan issue.
Democratic administrations have also contributed to aid growth. Under President Obama, aid levels increased, reflecting the Democratic view of foreign assistance as a tool for diplomacy and global stability. President Biden continued this trend, aiming for multi-year aid increases to address humanitarian needs and support global stability.
However, the Trump presidency marked a stark departure, consistently proposing cuts to aid of up to 30%. Although most of these cuts were blocked by bipartisan opposition in Congress, the administration’s rhetoric and prioritization of “America First” principles reflected a sceptical view of aid’s value. With Trump’s return to the presidency, concerns have resurfaced among development professionals regarding the possibility of substantial aid reductions.
The New Conservative Agenda for Development Aid
With the release of the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a “policy bible” for a new conservative administration, the future direction of U.S. aid policy is becoming clearer. This guide, shaped by Trump allies, presents a roadmap that calls for fundamental restructuring of USAID and a redefinition of aid priorities.
Among its recommendations:
Domestic-Focused Budgeting: Reflecting the administration's “America First” agenda, aid is viewed as an area where deep cuts can help reallocate resources to address domestic needs.
Scaling Back Global Commitments: To align aid with U.S. interests, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint proposes prioritizing aid to countries that counter Chinese influence while reducing aid in regions seen as less strategically important. It recommends major cuts to programs that do not align with conservative ideologies or economic interests, such as climate initiatives and DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs.
Emphasis on Local and Faith-Based Partnerships: The mandate envisions shifting aid away from large multinational organisations in favour of local and faith-based groups that reflect traditional values, including prioritising pro-life and family-focused aid projects.
Narrowed Scope on Health Programs: Programs like PEPFAR and the President's Malaria Initiative (PMI), traditionally seen as bipartisan, may face cuts or be reoriented to exclude reproductive health and gender equality services.
Projected Impact on Key Development Programs
How would these priorities impact U.S. development programs under a Trump-led administration?
Global Health Initiatives: Programs like PEPFAR could face re-evaluation. The new conservative agenda proposes refocusing health initiatives away from gender and reproductive health and towards traditional health support for mothers, children, and families. Given PEPFAR’s success and bipartisan support, it may survive in some form, but changes could limit its current scope and impact.
Climate Change Initiatives: The Heritage Foundation mandate outlines a rollback of climate policies, cutting all USAID programs designed to advance the Paris Agreement or encourage climate adaptation in recipient countries. Instead, aid would focus narrowly on traditional resilience projects.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Programs: The mandate seeks to eliminate funding for programs that promote DEI, as well as positions dedicated to these issues within USAID. This could affect programs targeting gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and racial equity in recipient countries.
Aid to Counter China’s Influence: A core focus for the administration would be countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Aid programs in regions like Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa would likely prioritise economic projects that support the U.S. free-market agenda, offering an alternative to Chinese investments.
Potential for Congressional Intervention and Bipartisan Support
One significant factor to keep in mind is that foreign aid decisions in the U.S. are influenced not only by the President but also by Congress. Historically, Congress has countered proposed cuts from the executive branch by maintaining or even increasing aid funding levels. For example, during Trump’s first term, bipartisan support from Congress prevented substantial cuts.
However, the dynamics may shift this time around. With Republicans holding majorities in both the House and Senate, there may be less resistance to proposed cuts. While bipartisan support for specific initiatives like PEPFAR may continue, the broader tone suggests that significant aid reductions could pass through Congress without major amendments.
What Development Professionals Should Prepare For
Given the likelihood of shifts in funding priorities, organisations dependent on U.S. aid may need to strategize on how to adapt to this new environment. Here are a few approaches development professionals can consider:
Diversify Funding Sources: Expanding partnerships with European, private-sector, or philanthropic donors can help mitigate reliance on U.S. government funding.
Engage in Advocacy: As aid cuts are debated in Congress, advocating the importance of aid for stability and security can be critical. Organisations should emphasise the measurable impacts of their programs and the role of aid in supporting U.S. national security.
Focus on Strategic Adaptation: Organisations that can adjust to the conservative agenda may retain funding by re-aligning their focus on local capacity-building, economic development, or partnerships with conservative-friendly entities.
Highlight Security and Economic Outcomes: Programs that directly benefit U.S. strategic interests are less likely to face cuts. Development professionals should position their work within frameworks that demonstrate clear benefits for U.S. security or economic stability.
Conclusion
The 2024 Trump victory introduces a new landscape for U.S. development aid, grounded in principles of reduced global footprint, prioritising aid aligned with American values, and countering Chinese influence. While previous administrations—both Democratic and Republican—have maintained certain development programs with bipartisan support, the proposed reforms signal a possible retreat from long-standing initiatives that do not align with the conservative agenda.
This evolving landscape presents challenges but also offers organisations an opportunity to rethink how they engage with U.S. foreign aid and adjust to potential new funding conditions. With strategic adaptation and proactive advocacy, development professionals can continue to advance impactful work, albeit in a more conservative aid environment.
References
Heritage Foundation. (2023). Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
ProPublica. (2019). "A Top USAID Official Flouts Rules". Retrieved from ProPublica website.
Devex Newswire. (2024). "The Future of EU Development and the U.S. Under Trump.
Comments