Rebuilding U.S. Foreign Assistance: A Call for Reform

A year ago, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development led to the closure of numerous U.S. global programs, including essential humanitarian aid. Alongside this, countries like the U.S., Canada, and the UK reduced aid budgets by 23 percent, or $40 billion. These cuts could potentially result in 9.4 million preventable deaths by 2030. Foreign aid remains a significant U.S. foreign policy tool.

David Beasley, former head of the World Food Program, and Ben Cardin, former Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, know U.S. foreign assistance can stop disease outbreaks and feed hungry children. It also aids in managing natural disasters. This assistance benefits the U.S. by ensuring safety, supporting global leadership, creating jobs, aiding in establishing trading partners, and saving taxpayer money.

“Foreign assistance is effective when targeted accurately and efficiently,” they insist.

However, America faces challenges. The reduction of aid budgets and USAID’s closure highlight foreign assistance’s shortcomings. To sustain this crucial tool, tough decisions about funding distribution, consistent public support, and innovative delivery methods are necessary. Efforts must aim for efficiency and self-sufficiency.

Renewing bipartisan efforts is crucial to foreign assistance success. Prioritizing American interests and effective program delivery requires broad public backing. Many Americans recognize foreign assistance as vital to global leadership. A poll by Echelon Insights, backed by the Rockefeller Foundation, shows 54 percent of Americans view foreign aid favorably. Eight out of ten favor reforming and strengthening, not eliminating, aid.

Support increases when specific programs are discussed. Humanitarian relief and disease prevention receive 90 percent support, while global health and economic development receive 84 percent and 81 percent, respectively.

The bipartisan Commission on the Future of Foreign Assistance seeks to reform foreign aid policies. Co-chaired by Beasley and Cardin, and supported by the American Enterprise Institute and Brookings Institution, this commission involves experienced former members of Congress and senior policy officials.

The commission engages Americans nationwide along with leaders in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. They seek ideas and analyze past program failures to understand why aid budgets face cuts. The need to connect foreign aid to national interests is emphasized.

President Reagan once said, “any retreat from our responsibilities endangers both our national ideals and our national interests.”

New innovative ideas are crucial for empowering development models. These models provide necessary humanitarian aid to those in crisis, protecting U.S. nationals and defending national security.

David Beasley and Ben Cardin acknowledge challenges ahead, emphasizing the high costs of inaction in an increasingly unpredictable world. General James Mattis’ 2013 statement about needing more ammunition without full funding for the State Department remains relevant.

The commission seeks creativity, honesty, broad support, and political will. Beasley and Cardin are confident in American ingenuity and optimism, believing these will lead to success.

The piece is based on personal experiences and insights from David Beasley, former South Carolina governor and World Food Program executive director, and Ben Cardin, former Maryland senator and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair.