I began this blog in 2013 to document my family's experience of planning and fundraising for a church mission trip to Honduras. I went on to visit Honduras 5 more times with the idealism of "making a difference", and over the course of our preparations, our teams became dedicated to the additional ideal of doing no harm. Ensuring our trips didn't contribute to "toxic charity", were not just for us to feel good about ourselves but would hopefully make meaningful long term differences in the lives of the people we were serving.
With all that in mind, it can't be any surprise to anyone that I am an advocate of governments of
powerful nations providing compassionate aid—food, medicine, or disaster relief—to "the least of these". However, I am not naive enough to ever believe this government aid is entirely altruistic, and it is certainly not a Christian calling they are following.
And sure, sometimes it is an act of generosity, particularly when a terrible natural disaster hits a country. But the full picture? It’s a lot more complicated. Foreign aid isn’t just about helping people. It’s about shaping the world in a way that benefits the United States.
That might sound cynical, but it’s reality. The US government isn’t writing billion-dollar checks out of the goodness of its heart. It’s making investments—investments in stability, influence, and strategic advantage.
The Difference Between Personal Giving and Government Aid
Most of us, when we give, do so from a place of compassion. Whether it’s donating to a food bank, sponsoring a child in another country, or tithing through our church, we give because we believe it’s the right thing to do. Maybe it’s faith, maybe it’s morality, maybe it’s just being a decent human being.
But government foreign aid? That’s not coming from the same place. It may do good, but it’s not driven by sympathy. It’s calculated.
Take the example of US aid sending condoms to Gaza. At first glance, it sounds absurd. In a region torn apart by war, was birth control really the priority? But the reasoning behind it wasn’t about compassion—it was about strategy. Reducing unintended pregnancies in an already unstable region could, in theory, lower humanitarian strain and long-term instability. The same goes for US funding of gender studies in parts of Asia and the Middle East. It’s framed as supporting equality, but the underlying goal is often about shaping cultural attitudes in ways that align with American values.
Why Does the US Give So Much?
At its core, foreign aid is about control. Countries that receive US aid are more likely to align with American policies, vote with the US in international organizations, and open their markets to American businesses. And if the US steps back? China and Russia are more than happy to step in.
It’s also about preventing crises before they start.
When countries collapse—whether from war, poverty, or corruption—those problems don’t stay contained. Instability leads to mass migration, extremist recruitment, and economic fallout that can ripple far beyond the borders of one struggling nation. By keeping certain regions afloat, the US is often preventing bigger problems down the line.
One of the clearest examples of this is education, particularly for girls. Studies have shown that when girls are educated, poverty rates go down, economies improve, and—importantly—terrorist recruitment drops. A 2018 World Bank study (1) found that increasing girls’ education in fragile states significantly reduced the likelihood of conflict. Groups like Boko Haram in Nigeria specifically target girls' schools because they know that an educated population—especially one where women play a role—threatens their control.
So when the US funds girls' education programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and parts of Africa, it’s not just about helping. It’s about long-term strategy. The hope is that educated girls grow into women who contribute to more stable societies—societies that are less likely to fall into extremism or violent conflict.
Follow the Money
A lot of foreign aid isn’t even leaving US borders. Much of it comes with conditions that require countries to buy American goods, hire American companies, or adopt economic policies that benefit the US. This isn’t new—it’s been a strategy since the post-WWII Marshall Plan, when the US helped rebuild Europe not just out of goodwill, but to create stable trade partners and prevent the spread of communism.
Foreign aid builds business opportunities. It builds alliances. And it builds leverage. That’s why it’s rarely cut, no matter who’s in office.
So Why Shut It Down?
That’s why the sudden closure of the USAID website, employees being told to stay home, and the agency being described as "a ball of worms" is so concerning. It raises a question that should matter to every American—especially those who benefit most from global stability. Why would the world’s richest man, someone whose wealth depends on international trade and a functioning global economy, fail to understand the value of foreign aid?
Because if USAID is messy, if it's inefficient, then the answer is to fix it—not to shut it down. The US has used aid as a tool for influence and control for decades, and abandoning it doesn’t mean the world stops needing it. It just means someone else—China, Russia—steps in to fill the void.
More Than Meets the Eye
None of this means foreign aid doesn’t do good. It absolutely does. It feeds people, provides life-saving medicine, and rebuilds communities after disasters. But it’s not pure altruism. It’s an investment—one designed to serve a much bigger purpose.
So, the next time someone suggests cutting foreign aid to save money, it’s worth asking: at what cost? Because in global politics, when one country steps back, another steps forward.
Sources:
(1) 2018 World Bank study "Missed Opportunities: The High Cost of Not Educating Girls
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/07/11/not-educating-girls-costs-countries-trillions-of-dollars-says-new-world-bank-report
[Images were created by AI]
