Member Login Become a Member
Advertisement

90-Day Breakup: America’s Policy Misstep in Pausing Foreign Assistance

  |  
02.03.2025 at 06:00am
90-Day Breakup: America’s Policy Misstep in Pausing Foreign Assistance Image

Introduction

A 90-day pause to United States foreign development assistance to review its efficacy and alignment with U.S. foreign policy is shock and awe politics from a new administration that seeks attention and visceral responses over sound policy that promotes the U.S.’s interests abroad. However, this approach compromises American leadership, as well as our political, military, and economic advantage overseas. This strategy will only embolden the U.S.’s adversaries and risks conveying that the United States is not a reliable, long-term partner. Additionally, a comprehensive stop-hold is an impractical timeline and excludes sound methodology for assessing whether foreign assistance programs are adequate or aligned with U.S. government foreign policy objectives.

Do the newly elected President Donald J. Trump and the newly appointed Secretary of State Marco Rubio have the authority, the right, and the obligation to ensure government funding and programs align with foreign policy? Absolutely. I would argue that routine reassessment is necessary to prevent fraud, eliminate no longer needed programs, and identify areas of opportunity. However, that already happens through mandatory internal audits of the U.S. government, third-party audits, and routine budget requests that require approval from Congress. Since Congress enacted the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, assistance has only been suspended a handful of times due to legal violations (Table 1). A complete halt on funding programs that are already underway is a strategic blunder and an administrative nightmare for the U.S. Government and the U.S.’s tens of thousands of implementing partners. It creates genuine national security concerns as we inadvertently cultivate new opportunities for the nation’s enemies to exploit at America’s expense.

Table 1 (Source: Author)

Congress Supports U.S. International Leadership and Foreign Assistance

Let us begin with the fact that the U.S.’s elected officials have supported, and continue to support, foreign assistance. Since its enactment under President Kennedy’s administration, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, routinely amended by Congress, provides legal standing, funding, and priorities for foreign assistance overseas (Table 2). To put a finer point on it, the 118th Congress (the most recent) amended and enacted the most recent version into law on December 23rd, 2024, explicitly stating, “The Congress finds that fundamental political, economic, and technological changes have resulted in the interdependence of nations. The Congress declares that the individual liberties, economic prosperity, and security of the people of the United States are best sustained and enhanced in a community of nations that respect individual civil and economic rights and freedoms, and which work together to wisely use the world’s limited resources in an open and equitable international economic system.

Table 2 (Source: Author)

Americans Generally Support U.S. International Leadership and Foreign Assistance

If we are talking about mandates from the American people, foreign assistance shouldn’t be receiving the treatment it is. A June 2024 poll by the Reagan Institute highlights that over three-quarters of Americans believe U.S. leadership is essential for promoting trade and boosting our economy (78%) and that America has a moral obligation to stand up for human rights and democracy around the world (77%). An even more significant percentage (86%) believes that a strong U.S. military is essential for maintaining peace and prosperity at home and abroad. The primary deterrent for Americans wanting to assist overseas is their desire for increased domestic spending on healthcare (67%), education (66%), improvements to public infrastructure such as highways, bridges, and airports (66%), and Social Security (58%)  (Table 3). While America’s education, health, and safety net programs do need an overhaul, the policy environment need not be either-or between domestic spending and foreign affairs.

Table 3 (Source: Ronald Reagan President Foundation and Institute)

Money and Security

The $63 billion budget for U.S. foreign assistance programs in fiscal year 2023 accounted for approximately 1% of the U.S. budget. If all Americans chipped in equally, that would amount to $420 per U.S. taxpayer. This isn’t to argue that this relatively low number absolves Congress of its responsibility to ensure it is spent in the nation’s best interests. Instead, it demonstrates that if money is an underlying argument for the knee-jerk reaction toward reevaluating foreign assistance, it is inaccurate. The current FY 2024 foreign assistance total obligations have been the lowest since 2002 and are nearly half of the $63 billion total obligations of FY 2023 (USAID & U.S. State Department, 2024).

Humanitarian assistance (a subset of foreign aid) accounted for only 20% of funding in FY2019, with peace and security being the most funded sectors in FY2019 and FY2020 (Morgenstern & Brown, 2022). This means that most of the few hundred dollars spent per taxpayer was spent on overseas programs to bolster U.S. national security. More specifically, funding objectives and program areas included counterterrorism, combating weapons of mass destruction, counternarcotics, and transnational crime. While the FY2024 budget emphasizes health, humanitarian assistance, and economic development, that does not mean these programs do not benefit the average American or the country. One must only look back at 2020 and the impact COVID-19 had on the international community regarding health and economics. Our national security is not limited to our ability to train and equip other militaries. It is also forever tied to the health and economic viability of the global community.

Many don’t realize this, but the U.S. Department of Defense and military assistance is a prominent piece of U.S. foreign assistance. Through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), American interests are achieved through humanitarian assistance, foreign military education, partner nation capacity building, foreign military equipment, and defense trade and arms transfers. These programs each have subsets of activities that military units are conducting as you are reading this article. It is unclear how this executive order will adversely affect these activities and military units. The best-case scenario creates distrust amongst our partners and reduces their willingness to partner with us in the future. In the worst-case scenario, military units supposed to conduct activities abroad must stop during these 90 days. Either case creates security concerns for those individual units abroad and strategic U.S. national security goals.

Feasibility

Foreignassistance.gov highlights that the U.S. government disbursed funds for 13,000 activities, assistance projects, programs, cash transfers, delivery of goods, training courses, research projects, debt relief operations, or contributions to international organizations for Fiscal Year 2024. Assuming all of these are under review, all 13,000 must be assessed within an even shorter period than stated in the executive order. Recommendations must filter through various levels of bureaucracy before reaching the executive by the 90-day mark. 90 days is used in this article for a simple calculation because the internal timeline could be more compressed.

Ninety days from January 20th (the date of the executive order) is April 20th. There are 26 weekend days within this timeframe, reducing the overall days available for review to 64. Assuming an 8-hour workday leaves approximately 512 hours to evaluate 15,000 programs. That is roughly 2 minutes per program to assess its worthiness of retention against all other programs. Additionally, USAID Senior Procurement Executive Jami Rodgers issued a memo stating that the process for waivers, as the review process for activities, is forthcoming. So, the timeline becomes even more obscure. In addition to the condensed timeline of the 90-day breakup, the pause implies a lack of oversight. The State Department, USAID, DoD, and DSCA all have internal auditing programs. Outside those agencies are the Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research Service, and Congressional Budget Office, to name a few. All of whom conduct reviews and provide information/recommendations to policymakers. The argument here is not that the incoming administration shouldn’t evaluate programs to ensure alignment with existing or new policy objectives, but that it certainly won’t be done effectively in less than 90 days, especially with the sword of Damocles hanging over the auditors’ heads.

Conclusion

It is imperative to remember that the United States Government’s intent with foreign assistance is not genuinely altruistic; it is bound to the betterment of the U.S. writ large. From rebuilding Europe after World War II, to supporting partners in the Middle East, the intent of foreign assistance is to help the U.S.’s strategic interests in one form or another. So, although it is well within the rights and responsibilities of a new administration to reassess foreign assistance programs, halting all funding for 90 days is neither practical nor strategic. The numbers alone illustrate the infeasibility of conducting thorough and effective reviews of thousands of programs within a constrained period.

Additionally, this policy risks undermining U.S. credibility, emboldening adversaries, and creating opportunities for further exploitation. Foreign assistance is not just a financial expenditure but a critical component of U.S. national security and global leadership. It reflects American values of promoting national security, human rights, and international stability.

Rather than a blanket pause, a more targeted and phased approach would ensure that foreign assistance programs continue to support U.S. interests without unnecessary disruption. Regular audits, strategic reviews, and congressional oversight are already in place to address concerns about fraud and inefficiency. Jeopardizing ongoing programs and partnerships for optics is sacrificing long-term gains for short-term political theater.

About The Author

  • Jerritt A. Lynn is an Army veteran with over 20 years of distinguished service and more than five years of deployment tours throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia. He earned a Master of Arts in Strategic Security Studies from the National Defense University and is completing his Graduate Certificate in College Teaching from the University of North Dakota. Additionally, he is pursuing a PhD in Public Policy with a concentration in Foreign Policy from Liberty University. He can be found on Instagram @jerritt_lynn and on Linkedin at jerritt_lynn24.

    View all posts

Article Discussion: