The Importance of US Foreign Aid (Part II)

It's not just about who has the most tanks, guns, and bombs

I had so much fun putting on my old academic hat while writing about the importance of US foreign aid to the average American that I decided to regale both of my readers with a Part II!

But in all seriousness, this is an incredibly important topic that is seeing time in the national spotlight and I want to put some effort into digging a little deeper about how this is such an important piece to both our foreign and domestic policy as a nation.

I want to try and help other Americans understand how these things impact their lives directly - and that it’s OK to discuss shifting priorities, but we should not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” when trimming the government fat.

Hard Power vs. Soft Power - Why both are needed

The United States has two primary ways to exert influence on the world stage: soft power (diplomacy, cultural influence, economic aid) and hard power (military force, economic sanctions, coercion).

Both of these approaches are essential to our standing in the world - but one is not always more important than the other in certain situations, especially in today’s hyper-connected world.

Hard Power

Hard power is the use of force, threats, or economic coercion to achieve national objectives. This includes military interventions, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; economic sanctions, like those imposed on Iran, Russia, and North Korea; and defensive alliances, such as NATO, that are used as a deterrence to aggression.

Unfortunately, hard power is an important and necessary part of our world. This becomes necessary when defending the US or our allies from direct threats, dissuading enemies from aggression (US troops stationed in South Korea to deter the North), or protecting global trade routes and freedom of navigation (US and allied naval presence in the Straight of Hormutz or the South China Sea).

The practical downside to this, however, is that hard power is extremely expensive.

The US spends nearly $900 billion per year on defense - more than the next ten countries combined.

War also has high human costs, with thousands of American service members (and many more innocent civilians) killed or injured during conflicts over the last 20 years.

Like I said - it’s an important and necessary evil, but there are high costs financially, morally, and personally.

Soft Power

Soft power, in contrast, influences global events without direct confrontation through diplomacy, foreign aid, and cultural engagement.

The term, coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, refers to the ability of a country to influence others through things like cultural appeal, values, diplomacy, and economic partnerships rather than coercion or military force.

Soft power leverages different tools in the toolbelt such as media, education, business relationships, humanitarian aid, and diplomatic engagement to shape international perception and behavior.

The U.S. uses soft power to build alliances, promote democratic values, and establish itself as a global leader without resorting to force. By funding international development and diplomatic efforts, America strengthens relationships with other nations.

Foreign aid and international partnerships reduce instability in foreign nations, preventing conflicts that could later involve the US. A stable world means fewer global security threats, such as terrorism or economic crises, that could impact American interests both at home and abroad.

Soft power also fosters economic ties by making the US an attractive trade partner. When other nations admire and trust America, they are more likely to buy U.S. products, invest in American businesses, and cooperate on trade deals that create jobs at home.

Trust is incredibly important, which is one of reasons why we need to stick to our commitments when we make them.

The U.S. competes with countries like China and Russia, who often use hard power tactics like military expansion or economic coercion. By using soft power—such as supporting democratic movements, funding education programs, and promoting American culture—the U.S. provides a compelling alternative to authoritarian influence.

How Does Soft Power Affect Me at Home?

When American businesses and products are seen as desirable abroad, it leads to greater exports, which supports U.S. industries and job creation.

Foreign students and workers attracted to the U.S. also contribute billions to the economy through tuition, tourism, and innovation. Not to mention a population boost, which our aging population needs in order to meet our future public obligations (such as Social Security, and Medicaid/Care).

Soft power also reduces the need for costly wars and military interventions. By addressing issues like poverty, disease, and extremism abroad through diplomacy and aid, the U.S. helps prevent conflicts that could threaten American safety and require military action.

Think about it - if a $20 million dollar investment in “Iraqi Sesame Street” can help prevent a $2 trillion war that costs hundreds of thousands of lives (including tens of thousands of our American service members), is that not an investment worth considering? (Obviously Sesame Street isn’t going to fix every issue)

And while not as big in the grand scheme of things, proper US soft power also helps Americans traveling abroad - we tend to be more welcomed in areas where we’ve exerted soft power rather than hard power. Businesses also face fewer barriers in international markets - which all enhances the ease of trade, tourism, and global cooperation.

Those are all good things for the average American!

Why Is Soft Power Often a Better Investment?

Hard power is necessary for deterrence and defense, but soft power is often the smarter investment.

It’s a cost-effective way to shape global stability without American bloodshed or massive military costs.

The costs are far lower than war - we spent over $4 trillion in two wars over the last 20 years. This is in contrast to roughly 1% of annual US spending that goes toward foreign aid.

What’s the best way to avoid getting involved in a war? Preventing it before it even starts - and that’s what foreign aid contributes to. Investing in stable governments, economies, and health systems reduces the likelihood of extremist groups or dictatorships rising.

And when you reduce the likelihood of unstable extremist or authoritarian regimes, you create stable countries and strong economic partners. Countries that receive US foreign aid often become those strong partners - such as South Korea and Vietnam. This does nothing but increase US exports and American jobs.

It also builds alliances and friendly partnerships without resentment. Military interventions tend to irk the local populations - and that doesn’t do much in helping promote our global influence in sustainable way.

Historical Examples of Soft Power

• The Marshall Plan (1948-1952) - After WWII, the US provided $13 billion (in dollars from those days) to rebuild Western economies. This was the solution rather than occupying war-torn countries - and it helped create the strong economies and alliances of our biggest trade partners. It also kept these countries from falling into the Soviet sphere of influence, which would have been detrimental to US affairs abroad and at home.

• The Green Revolution (1950s and 1960s) - The US funded agricultural research and technology transfer to countries like India and Mexico to increase crop yields and reduce food shortages. This helped develop high-yield, famine/flood-resistant crops that saved millions from starvation and prevented massive social unrest - it also helped create more stable governments and markets in which the US could to operate. All while preventing them from turning to the USSR or China for support.

• Ebola Crisis Response (2014-2016) - When the Ebola virus outbreak threatened West Africa, the U.S. led a $5 billion international response, deploying health workers, medical aid, and vaccines. The outbreak was contained before it spread globally, preventing a catastrophic health crisis - one that very well could have hit the US, costing billions of dollars in healthcare costs, disrupted the economy, and risked American lives.

Current Conversation

Again, I’m not trying to defend every single expenditure that goes out through US foreign aid channels, but the decisions are often a reflection of what the US portrays as their values.

And those values can change between administrations, which is perfectly acceptable - it’s why we have elections.

But be careful when reading partisan social media posts or news headlines that use intentionally inflammatory or “triggering” words (meaning words used intentionally that trigger certain emotions for certain subjects).

For example, I saw several discussions around US funding “DEI programs” in Serbia or other countries in Latin America.

I’m not here to argue the benefits/hang-ups of American DEI policies - but if you think “DEI” is some blanket statement that means the exact same thing in a country like Serbia or Honduras as it does in the US, I’m not sure what to tell you. They have different histories, different ethnic groups (and issues between those differing ethnic groups), and different workforce participation rates/issues facing their countries.

So what if that funding went toward expanding and including more people in the workforce of the country that received the funding?

Research consistently shows that national economies tend to perform better when more women are actively participating in the workforce (too much research to link here, I wouldn’t even know where to start - just Google it).

And many countries that receive this type of aid - especially those that are still developing - have gender gaps, especially in the workforce, that are significantly larger than the US.

So again, if the US supports policies that grow the economies of our trading partners - who benefits from growing economies with higher wages and more wage-earners? US businesses, workers, and consumers whose jobs rely on selling or purchasing goods and materials abroad.

If you’re upset about US tax dollars going toward funding economic development in Latin America, I imagine you’re even more upset with our current immigration crisis at the Southern Border.

So is it exactly a bad thing if we are looking to ease immigration pressures at the places where people are emigrating north en masse by investing in economic development programs?

If we can help reduce gang violence, drug trafficking, poverty, and corruption in places like Guatamala, El Salvador, and Honduras - those are the main drivers of illegal immigration. It’s not just because they want free American hand-outs - it’s because they don’t have any opportunities to live peacefully and flourish in their own homes.

So why not try and shut it off at the source? Why not create more stable environments for locals to flourish and grow, which reduces the flow of illegal emigration out of their countries and immigration to the US, all while creating new markets in which US interests can grow?

It’s a lot more complex than that, but it sounds pretty win-win to me, if done properly and under the right conditions.

And sure, you can disagree. You can say “no, keep them out and don’t give them my tax dollars.”

Or you can say “we have those same problems at home, we should focus on that first.” And you wouldn’t be wrong. I don’t deny that for one second.

But we also have federal, state, and local programs that pour billions upon billions of dollars into these issues at home, too. We have plenty of opportunities for people of every walk of life here at home.

These foreign investments represent less than 1% of US federal spending (and that doesn’t include the billions of state, local, and philanthropic/private dollars - the relative percentage would go way down in that case).

At the end of the day, we need to look at the ROI.

Soft power isn’t just charity - it’s a strategic investment.

These investments help America stay secure, build alliances, and strengthen the economy, all at a fraction of the cost of military interventions/operations.

It prevents conflicts before they start.

It creates long-term trade partners.

It improves America’s image and diplomatic influence.

It saves money compared to military force.

It protects Americans from global threats - from disease outbreaks to economic crises.

Let’s keep having the conversation, but let’s not take one of our most successful and cost-effective tools out of the tool box and throw it in the trash because we lose sight of the benefits that aren’t as tangible or easy to quantify.