In Donald Trump’s first term, he took a markedly different approach to foreign affairs than most modern presidents, pulling away from Europe and NATO, increasing relations with Russia and Saudi Arabia, and reducing foreign aid. Now, with the inauguration of Trump for a second term, we see the same playbook on a much larger and unprecedented scale.
Americans’ opinions on foreign aid have shifted and are often misinformed. According to the Brookings Institute, many polls show that Americans believe foreign aid accounts for about 25% of the federal budget when it is less than 1%.
A poll conducted by Global Affairs found that 50% of Americans believe the U.S. should cut back on foreign military aid, 35% think it should stay the same, 51% think the U.S. should cut back on economic aid, and 33% believe it should remain unchanged.
First, let’s look at NATO. According to NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed after World War II by various Western European nations, Canada, and the United States. Since then, it has included most of Europe, except for Ireland, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, Austria, Switzerland, Bosnia and Kosovo, as well as microstates within Europe.
NATO has long been a core pillar of U.S. foreign policy, serving as a check against Russian aggression, with most members playing some role in the U.S. war on terror over the past two decades. Despite Trump’s increasingly harsh rhetoric toward the alliance, a poll conducted by YouGov shows that 62% of citizens continue to support the idea of defending NATO members.
President Trump has long complained about what he sees as disproportionate U.S. aid to the alliance. Regarding military budgets, NATO sets a threshold of 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. According to the Atlantic Council, 23 out of 32 nations in the alliance meet the 2% target. Poland spends the largest percentage of GDP on defense at 4.12%. Although the U.S. has a smaller percentage at 3.3%, it has the largest military budget, totaling $820 billion, compared to Poland’s $47 billion.
Clearly, the U.S. spends the most, as it has the largest GDP and military budget in dollar terms.
Additionally, all nations below the 2% threshold have been increasing military spending, except for Italy, which has a smaller percentage than in 2021. During a trip to Europe recently, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said Europe will have to step up, even suggesting that U.S. troops on the continent will not be permanent.
Trump’s abandonment of European allies during this crucial time of unprecedented Russian aggression—unseen since Joseph Stalin or the days of the Tsars—would not only be a shameful betrayal of our allies who stood by the U.S. during the war on terror but would also send a message to Russian President Vladimier Putin that the U.S. and NATO are weak. This could provide Putin with the opportunity to invade a NATO member, such as Poland or the Baltics, which would trigger Article 5, the core principle of NATO, which declares that an attack on one member is an attack on all. This would result in all NATO members engaging in war against the aggressor.
Ukraine, however, is not a NATO member and is thus not covered by the protections afforded to NATO states. Throughout the 2024 campaign, President Trump claimed he would end the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine before even taking office. He is now seemingly trying to achieve this goal by holding a conference in Saudi Arabia with Russia to seek an end to the war. However, the U.S. has excluded both Ukrainians and Europeans from these talks.
Trump has also appeared to adopt a much friendlier stance toward Russia. On Feb. 24, the U.S. voted with Russia and other adversaries, including North Korea, against a UN resolution blaming Russia for its invasion of Ukraine.
Ukraine recently attempted to strike a deal with the U.S. to create a jointly owned “Reconstruction Investment Fund.” Under the agreement, Ukraine would allocate 50% of future revenues from state-owned natural resource assets—such as oil, gas, and rare earth minerals—to the fund. Trump initially demanded $500 billion worth of Ukraine’s rare earths and minerals, which President Zelensky rejected as “selling” the country. This led to a feud between Trump and Zelensky, with Trump calling Zelensky “a dictator without elections,” according to CNN.
The escalating tensions culminated in a Feb. 28 meeting between President Trump and Zelensky and Vice President Vance. The encounter, intended to solidify the minerals agreement and discuss peace strategies, devolved into a heated dispute. Vance accused Zelensky of ingratitude, which sparked a sharp exchange. Trump further admonished Zelensky, suggesting his actions were courting global conflict. Despite the confrontational atmosphere, Zelensky maintained his stance, emphasizing Ukraine’s need for genuine security assurances and expressing skepticism toward Russia’s reliability, given past breaches of agreements. The meeting concluded abruptly without any agreements, casting uncertainty over future U.S.-Ukraine relations and the broader geopolitical landscape.
During the meeting, Trump suggested that Zelensky’s animosity toward Putin was an obstacle to peace negotiations. Trump defended Putin’s character, expressing confidence in his relationship with the Russian leader. This stance has raised concerns among international observers about the U.S. administration’s commitment to supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression.
This situation has now culminated in Trump pausing military aid to Ukraine.
Trump claimed he is “trying to get the money back” that the Biden administration sent to Ukraine, falsely stating that the U.S. has given $350 billion since February 2022. The actual figure is about $120 billion, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
The Trump administration has recently shut down USAID, providing food, medicine, training and other essential services to nations whose governments lack the infrastructure to provide such aid or in areas of extreme poverty, war or crises. This is important not only from a moral perspective but also from a national security and foreign policy standpoint. If the U.S. withdraws from these areas, the countries won’t stop needing help, and Russia, or more likely China, will step in to fill the void. According to the Atlantic, China has already been building relationships with countries in the developing world that have significant resources, are strategically located, or play important roles in regions like Africa and South America, where China has increasingly ramped up relations.
China has been doing this through its Belt and Road Initiative, which allows the Chinese government to gain vital trade relations, access essential resources, and enter into new markets in exchange for loans to help countries build infrastructure and communication networks. This is similar to how the U.S. previously provided aid to nations, which they used to benefit their people. In return, these nations saw the U.S. as a strategic partner they could rely on, granting us access to resources, military bases, or cooperation in fighting the war on terror through intelligence sharing, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The point is that USAID was not just about the U.S. throwing money at countries; it was a way to help people while building strategic, long-lasting partnerships in crucial locations.
The 90-day pause on all foreign aid, except for aid directly distributed by the Pentagon, has also impacted our allies in the Indo-Pacific, such as Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and the Philippines. The pause has disrupted ongoing military training and previous financial agreements. This presents a dangerous threat to the safety and security of the Indo-Pacific region, as China—widely considered the U.S.’s greatest opponent in the coming decades—continues to ramp up its aggression toward our allies in the Pacific. Any signs of wavering from our allies will only embolden the CCP to continue their expansionist and provocative operations.
This aid is also critical to many nations in the Indo-Pacific, such as Vietnam, where USAID has funded the cleanup of unexploded munitions from the Vietnam War. These remnants cover one-fifth of the country, and since the war’s end in 1975, 40,000 people have been killed, and 70,000 have been injured, according to The New York Times. USAID not only helps clean up these munitions but also assists those injured and killed.
USAID has played a crucial role in delivering essential aid to regions affected by war, famine, and viral outbreaks in Africa. This assistance includes food, medicine, and medical training to help local health workers respond to crises more effectively. Beyond immediate relief, these efforts also contribute to long-term stability by addressing the root causes of insecurity and economic hardship.
When it comes to viral outbreaks, early intervention is key. By preventing or treating diseases at the source, USAID helps contain infections before they spread across borders. For example, during the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa, USAID funded rapid response teams, supported local clinics and helped establish early detection systems to curb the virus before it became a global threat. This not only protected lives but also prevented economic devastation, as disease outbreaks can cripple industries, disrupt supply chains, and weaken local economies.
Food security is another major concern. War and disease often lead to agricultural collapse, forcing communities into cycles of hunger and instability. USAID’s food assistance programs help prevent famine by supporting farmers with better tools and training and creating more resilient food systems. These efforts reduce the risk of conflict, as hunger and economic desperation can fuel unrest and mass migration.
By investing in health, food security, and economic stability, USAID’s work helps build stronger, more self-sufficient communities. In turn, this contributes to global security by reducing the conditions that lead to mass migration, extremism, and political instability.
U.S. aid has never been simply about giving money away; it has been about investment—investment in security partners in Europe, Asia, and Africa, investment in preventing diseases, and investment in preventing extremism. Through this investment, the U.S. has built a coalition of partners worldwide to tackle issues affecting not just those nations but the U.S.. That seems like a pretty good trade-off for just 1% of the budget.
