America’s Foreign Aid to Other Countries Benefits Us

By: Saira Uttamchandani

During the time that President Trump has been in office for his second presidential term, his administration has paused all U.S. foreign aid, resulting in a multi-billion-dollar cut to U.S. assistance overseas. The administration has dedicated itself to “maximiz[ing] governmental efficiency and productivity,” cutting spending that it feels is unnecessary via the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

This is a shortsighted decision. 

America’s foreign aid greatly benefits other nations, as well as the American economy, security, and health. Cutting foreign aid is a mistake that harms national interests – something that all Americans should be concerned with, regardless of political affiliations.

Over the course of the 2023 fiscal year, the United States government spent 71.9 billion dollars on foreign aid, a little over 1% of the year’s total government spending. There are multiple agencies through which the United States dispenses funds, most notably the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department. Since USAID’s establishment under the Kennedy administration, it has provided emergency food assistance, facilitated transitions to democracy, and helped with economic aid and stabilization in numerous countries. These causes have helped the United States economically, both directly and indirectly.

American foreign aid creates trade relationships that help grow the American economy. Over 95% of the world’s population lives outside the United States, meaning that 3 trillion dollars of U.S. GDP comes largely from American businesses selling to customers abroad. Reaching this large of a customer base requires strong relationships with other nations—relationships predicated on mutual understanding and cooperation, of which foreign aid is a big part. In fact, the vast majority of our country’s top trading partners are nations to which the United States has provided foreign aid. 

To stop fostering existing economic relationships and prevent the formation of potential new ones through distribution of foreign aid would devastate the economy. 

Additionally, cutting foreign aid allows our enemies to strengthen their relationships with other countries and gain the economic benefits that foreign aid once gave the United States. The US is the largest provider of foreign assistance, and stepping down from that role allows a competing hegemon such as China to fulfill that position and reap the economic and diplomatic benefits we once did. 

Currently, American foreign aid has a better reputation with recipient nations than Chinese and Russian foreign aid–this has happened over time due to the transparency of American aid. Thus, continuing to provide foreign assistance is an effective way for the US to maintain its image as more trustworthy than its enemies, a valuable asset in the global fight for power.

Furthermore, the American economy is heavily reliant on foreign trade. Millions of American jobs are involved. The President’s move to remove ourselves from the international practice of providing foreign aid poses a significant risk to these millions of Americans.

The relationships that foreign aid creates are also valuable beyond the economic sphere. Countries like China and Russia are not democracies. American foreign aid has helped with the democratization of the world, with practices such as fair judicial processes and media independence making other countries less vulnerable to foreign interference. This creates a safer world, as democracies are far less likely to engage in conflict with one another, and therefore more reliable allies for the United States in the fight against authoritarian regimes.

Foreign aid also contributes to disease eradication. Foreign aid has played a significant role in reducing the presence and spread of diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis through programs like the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and USAID. Spending money on foreign aid to combat diseases helps ensure they won’t reach American shores. To stop funding these efforts is to put millions of people who rely on US foreign aid for anti-viral treatment, vaccines, and other preventative measures at risk, as well as millions more due to the invigorated spread of disease. 

Therefore, rather than cutting foreign aid, President Trump should be utilizing it to increase our global competitiveness and protect American citizens and interests. Investing in foreign aid provides numerous benefits to the United States, and cutting it is a harmful mistake.

Reassessing Strategies for Foreign Aid, Lessons from Lesotho

By: Aidan Stern

In 1975, the World Bank published a report about Lesotho, a land-locked, enclave nation completely surrounded by South Africa. The bank called the country a traditional subsistence economy, devoid of modern economic development. Rapid population growth, deteriorating agricultural production, and underdeveloped industries in Lesotho forced most laborers to migrate to South Africa for work in mines to support their families. 

Fitting traditional justifications for economic intervention, development agencies working in Lesotho gained $64 million in official assistance to address the plight of the Basotho people, aLesotho ethnic group. At the time, the money amounted to $49 for every person – man, woman, or child – living in Lesotho. Development initiatives rushed to establish a cash economy and build infrastructures like roads, fenced areas, and administrative hubs in rural communities to develop a cattle industry and accumulate credit. 

Despite what seemed to be the case on paper, three years into the project, a development office had been burned down and the Canadian Officer in charge of the program was fearing for his life. In the end, the aid organizations’ projects, co-opted by the ruling Basotho National Party, were used as propaganda and manipulated to centralize the state, exerting increased control over rural areas of the country. So, what went wrong?

The aid agencies failed to articulate actual conditions in Lesotho, instead focusing on a crisis narrative. The World Bank report ran contrary to many historical conditions and practices in Lesotho. They had a long history of stockpiling and exporting crops and livestock to South Africa. Further, labor migration was not an indicator of economic stress, but rather a long-established practice, where the Basotho acted as a labor reservoir for South African mines, farms, and industry. In turn, Basothos used earnings to purchase livestock to rear and sell when they could no longer work in the physically intensive South African industries. A farming economy didn’t materialize in the area because earlier encroachments of white settlers drove Basotho people into less productive land, creating dependence on a migratory economy. 

However, Ferguson and Lohmann debunked this narrative in their book The Anti-Politics Machine. In their terms, the international development apparatus, including the World Bank and aid agencies, “[rearranged] reality” to address problems that fit into a narrative of modern development. In doing so, the apparatus ignored the context of Lesotho’s economy and politics by shifting the problem to a purely technical standpoint. Problems became centered around solutions like developing an export based livestock economy, which clashed with long-term local conceptions of livestock as a measure of wealth and investment. The mass production of livestock and privatization of public lands would lead to overgrazing and the degradation of the land that hurts pastoralists in the long run. 

Additionally, development agencies failed to realize the political context of their development efforts by solely focusing on the government as a tool for the administration of their projects. This failure led to the expansion of a bureaucratic government equipped with better infrastructure and more resources that enabled them to prevent democratic activism and gain control over local functions. 

It is important to note that foreign aid has come a long way since the 1970s, but still has a long way to go. Solutions rely on community involvement and empowerment. Initiatives like Africa’s Great Green Wall, a massive water fixation project spanning from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea to combat the expansion of the Sahara Desert, are great examples of projects which show improvements and lingering challenges with aid implementation. The project is highly ambitious, under-financed, diluted with government grift, and plagued with conflicts that prevent communities from working to replenish their land against desertification. However, there are plenty of agents facilitating conflict resolution, negotiating deals on grazing rights for pastoralists and protections for farmers among project sites. Furthermore, the UN has worked alongside the government of Chad, a partner nation in the project, to solve refugee crises by integrating refugees and host communities through joint efforts to build water harvesting structures. By focusing on the smaller project sites within the massive scale of the Great Green Wall, workers have found success enabling local communities. Luckily, the development community has been moving in the right direction, and stories of community empowerment are becoming more mainstream.

In the future, the UN and other development agencies must focus on stories of problem-solving, trust-building, and communal facilitation. True success in these initiatives originates in the people who become empowered to change their homes on their terms. As students at the University of Virginia, or anyone that reads the Virginia Journal, we have the opportunity to demand more of the organizations that work to better our and others’ lives. The first step in this is educating yourself about effective action and holding the organizations you help to a greater standard.

International Law and Accountability: The Case of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

By: Nilufer Molla

The purpose of international law is to establish the responsibilities of each state in relation to its conduct toward other countries and its treatment of national and international citizens. The current Israel-Palestine conflict demonstrates the consequences when legal obligations are outlined on paper, but have no real power from major international bodies to enforce or support them.   

The 2023 hostilities started when Hamas launched an attack on Israeli settlements, taking 254 hostages and prompting the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to take retaliatory action. Since October 7th, 2023, Israel has made continuous efforts to target Hamas; however, the victims have primarily been the civilian population of Palestine, with no assurance of justice or security. What followed has been a conflict that has further escalated into the systematic erasure of the Palestinian people.

Forced displacement, starvation, and bombings that amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, according to legal scholars, genocide, must be addressed. However, we see little to no action taken to hold the perpetrators accountable for such violations. In fact, ceasefire agreements and other international laws continue to be broken by both nations, with one causing more humanitarian damage than the other. For example, after establishing a ceasefire in mid-January 2025, Israel launched surprise attacks in Gaza in March, violating yet another ceasefire agreement. The attacks killed and injured over 1000 civilians, demonstrating the fragility of these agreements when little enforcement exists.

Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits not only the denial of humanitarian aid, but also the obstruction of its passage. Article 54 of Additional Protocol 1 prohibits starvation as a weapon of war. 

However, since May 2024, the UN World Food Programme has reported that roughly 85% of aid convoys to Gaza have been intercepted or blocked by Israeli authorities. And, famine has been confirmed. Ross Smith, the WFP’s Director of Emergencies, described the situation as “clearly a disaster unfolding in front of our eyes, in front of our television screen.” Including numerous other violations, the resulting damage includes but is not limited to the destruction of hospitals, irrevocable malnutrition, long-term famine, and loss of innocent life. 

Present international law violations are not an aberration. The Israel-Palestine conflict stretches back generations before October 2023, and ceasefire violations date as early as 1949. Specifically, since its creation, there has been a visible pattern of Israel breaking ceasefire agreements and truces with other countries. Immediately after the Israeli state was created in 1948, it violated the Armistice Agreement by attacking demilitarized zones, resulting in the deaths of numerous Palestinian civilians. Though it must be considered that these actions may have been preemptive in anticipation of an attack, the broader argument is that the absence of enforcement and action towards accountability leads to cyclical violations and violence. 

The absence of international humanitarian law is not the main issue; instead, the persisting failure to enforce it is. This pattern of continuous violations is not unique to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The United Nations (UN) often limits itself to condemnation while violence escalates on the ground. Other countries, in the past and present, have also experienced human rights violations without the United Nations’ intervention.  

When addressing several present and past Israel-Palestine human rights violations, the United Nations has appeared to only produce reports and non-legally-binding resolutions while urging that Israel’s “military operations must be conducted in strict accordance with international humanitarian law.” While condemnation is a positive step, addresses are not sufficient, especially within such a major international body. 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) had finally issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the former defense minister in November 2024, after about a decade since the start of the investigation. The warrant was issued over war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza; however, no further action has been taken by the ICC. ICC member states are now obligated to arrest those charged when they are in their territory. UN powers appear to be limited, but a modern and more active stance must be taken while lives are at risk.

Since the creation of the UN, the question of Palestine has always existed. The main aspect of the UN offers a forum for discussion on conflict prevention. But even these efforts have experienced continuous pushback from Israel with United States support. While global leaders wait to come to a consensus, thousands of lives have already been lost in the process. 

This conflict makes one thing clear: if a country can violate international law, even striking UN agencies themselves, with no consequence, the entire system meant to promote and preserve global peace and security becomes, to an extent, meaningless.