Skepticism is growing about foreign aid across the political spectrum. That’s fair. For too long, foreign assistance has been bloated, unfocused, and misaligned with U.S. priorities. But if the federal government wants to bolster national security and long-term prosperity, it needs smart engagement abroad, not wholesale retrenchment.
The first Trump administration understood this. It prioritized accountability, performance, and results in foreign aid. It pushed for foreign assistance policies that served the American people, not international institutions. That effort should continue in the President’s second administration. But we need to move past the idea that all foreign assistance is bad and instead ask: Which programs make America safer, stronger, and more competitive?
Done correctly, foreign engagement isn’t charity, it’s a cost-effective way to strengthen U.S. national security.
Let’s take a few examples. PEPFAR, the U.S. government’s flagship global HIV/AIDS program, has saved more than 25 million lives. It has also helped stabilize governments, reduce refugee flows, and prevent the kind of health crises that too often leap across borders. The same goes for U.S. investments in anti-malaria programs, global disease surveillance, and emergency food aid to feed starving children in Africa and in war-torn regions around the world. These are forward-looking national security tools.
Likewise, programs that address mass migration before it reaches U.S. borders save money and reduce risk. Take so-called voluntary return programs. Instead of spending $17,000 to forcibly deport people from the U.S., programs backed by the Department of Homeland Security and international partners average closer to $4,500 per voluntary return. These efforts provide a cost-effective, legal, and orderly way for migrants to go home and for host countries to absorb them comfortably. They deter illegal crossings and promote security without resorting to mass detention or chaos at the border.
In recent years, including during the first Trump administration, international partners, including agencies like the International Organization for Migration (IOM), have worked with U.S. officials to similarly implement these programs efficiently. IOM has worked closely with U.S. officials on voluntary returns, anti-trafficking operations, and modern border systems, especially in Latin America. These are not open-border efforts. They support law enforcement, enhance regional stability, and reduce the power of transnational criminal networks.
Perhaps the clearest reason for the US to stay engaged in international programs is China. Beijing is expanding its global influence through predatory lending, control of vital infrastructure, and strategic investments in weak states. If the U.S. pulls back from foreign assistance, it is not shrinking government; it’s handing the keys to expanding international influence to the Chinese Communist Party. Countering China requires the U.S. to be present, proactive, and principled. That means investing in foreign engagement, not just issuing warnings from afar.
We’ve already seen results. In Africa, development programs along with private-sector investment are helping governments push back against Chinese dependency. In Central America, U.S. assistance has supported efforts to disrupt smuggling networks and enhance border security.
If the U.S. wants secure borders, fewer migrant surges, and less instability abroad, it needs the right tools. That means foreign assistance that is lean, accountable, has rigorous oversight, clear metrics, and a laser focus on U.S. interests and homeland security. The first Trump administration began that process. The next one should finish the job.
America can’t afford disengagement.
Jim Richardson is Executive Chairman of the Pompeo Foundation and a former U.S. State Department official.
