14: Chapter 14- Interests and Influence- U.S. Foreign Policy

Why Does It Matter?

Foreign policy affects national security, the global economy, human rights, the environment, and even the prices we pay for goods at home. Decisions made in Washington, D.C. can ripple around the world—and vice versa. The official goals of U.S. foreign policy, as stated by the U.S. Department of State, are to: “Build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.”

Idealism: A Response to World War I

Idealism gained prominence after World War I, as a response to the unprecedented destruction and casualties caused by modern warfare. New weapons such as machine guns, poison gas, tanks, and trench warfare shocked political leaders and civilians alike. Among those deeply affected was President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921), a political scientist who became the leading advocate of idealism in U.S. foreign policy.

Realism: A Response to Fascist Aggression

Realism emerged in the 1930s and rose to dominance during and after World War II. It was a direct reaction to the expansionist ambitions of fascist regimes in Europe and Asia. Realists advocate a more cynical and power-centered view of international relations, grounded in historical experience and strategic necessity.

A Modern Mix: Idealism and Realism in Practice

While Realism dominated early Cold War foreign policy, Idealism returned to prominence in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly with President Jimmy Carter, who emphasized human rights and international cooperation. However, events such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led to a shift back toward realism, largely driven by Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

In practice, most modern U.S. presidents incorporate elements of both schools:

· George H. W. Bush championed international cooperation during the Gulf War (1991), a realist action conducted through a UN coalition.

· George W. Bush justified the Iraq War (2003) partly through realist concerns about weapons of mass destruction, but also invoked idealist rhetoric about spreading democracy.

· Barack Obama emphasized diplomacy and multilateralism (idealism) while also authorizing targeted military strikes (realism).

· Joe Biden has followed a realist approach in some cases, such as the withdrawal from Afghanistan, while maintaining idealist support for Ukraine’s democracy and sovereignty.

The ongoing tension between Idealism and Realism reflects deeper questions about how the United States sees its role in the world. Should the U.S. act as a moral leader promoting democracy and human rights, or as a pragmatic power pursuing its own security and interests? Most administrations navigate this balance, adjusting to global circumstances and domestic pressures. Understanding these two schools of thought provides a valuable lens through which to interpret the history and future of U.S. foreign policy.

Hard Power

Hard power refers to the use of coercive force to influence the behavior of other countries. This includes the use, or threat, of military force, as well as economic pressure such as sanctions or trade restrictions.

Examples of hard power include:

· The invasion of Iraq in 2003, justified by the perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction.

· Economic sanctions on countries like North Korea, Iran, or Russia, aimed at changing their behavior by cutting off trade and financial access.

· Military interventions, drone strikes, and displays of force through naval or air power.

Hard power is often associated with realism, as it focuses on national interests, deterrence, and survival in a competitive international system.

Soft Power

Coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, soft power refers to a country’s ability to influence others through attraction rather than coercion. It relies on the strength of a nation’s culture, values, political ideals, and global image.

The U.S. projects soft power through:

· Cultural exports like music, movies, sports, and higher education (e.g., international students attending U.S. universities).

· Development aid and humanitarian assistance, such as disaster relief or public health programs.

· A commitment to democracy, rule of law, and human rights, which can inspire other nations to align with U.S. leadership.

Soft power is often linked to idealism, as it reflects a belief in shared values and global cooperation.

Diplomacy

Diplomacy is the practice of negotiation, communication, and dialogue between nations. It can include formal relationships (such as embassies and treaties) or informal channels (such as back-channel talks and summit meetings).

Successful diplomacy may involve:

· Treaty negotiations, like arms reduction agreements or climate accords.

· Alliances, such as NATO, where diplomatic coordination supports mutual defense.

· Mediation of conflicts, as when U.S. diplomats help broker peace deals or ceasefires between rival groups.

Diplomacy often involves both hard and soft power. For instance, a nation might use the threat of sanctions (hard power) while offering economic aid or trade benefits (soft power) to achieve a diplomatic goal.

In the real world, the United States rarely relies on just one tool. A mix of hard power, soft power, and diplomacy is typically used to advance U.S. interests abroad. For example, during the Cold War, the U.S. combined military alliances (hard power), propaganda and cultural exchange (soft power), and diplomatic negotiations with both allies and adversaries. Today, in confronting global challenges like terrorism, climate change, great-power competition, and pandemics, effective foreign policy requires skillfully balancing all three tools.

The War Powers Debate: Who Can Make War?

The Constitution names the President as “Commander in Chief” of the military, but it gives Congress the power to declare war, raise and fund the armed forces, and regulate foreign commerce. This creates a fundamental tension: Who has the final say over military action?

Historically, Congress has declared war only five times, most notably during World War I and World War II. In contrast, presidents have ordered over 200 military operations without formal declarations of war.

To limit this trend, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973, also known as the War Powers Resolution, in the wake of the Vietnam War and Watergate scandal. The law was meant to reassert Congressional authority in foreign military engagements. President Richard Nixon vetoed the War Powers Act, arguing it infringed on executive authority, but Congress overrode his veto, reflecting widespread concern over unchecked presidential war powers. The law requires:

· The President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying U.S. forces into hostilities.

· A 60-day limit on such deployments without Congressional approval, followed by a 30-day withdrawal period if authorization is not granted.

Every president since Nixon has questioned the constitutionality of the law—and many have ignored it in practice.

Presidential Challenges to the War Powers Act

Presidents from both parties have tested or sidestepped the War Powers Act. Here are three of the most illustrative examples:

· Ronald Reagan and the Invasion of Grenada (1983)

Reagan ordered U.S. troops to invade the Caribbean island of Grenada to remove a Marxist regime, without consulting Congress. The mission was militarily successful and popular with the public, and Congress ultimately declined to challenge him—even though the move clearly bypassed the War Powers Act.

· Barack Obama and Airstrikes in Libya (2011)

Obama launched a NATO-backed military intervention in Libya without Congressional approval, arguing that the limited air campaign didn’t amount to “hostilities” under the War Powers Act. This controversial interpretation reignited debate over presidential war powers and the effectiveness of the law.

· Donald Trump and the Strike on Soleimani (2020)

President Trump ordered the targeted killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Iraq without prior Congressional authorization. The strike escalated tensions with Iran and led Congress to pass a resolution aimed at limiting further military action. However, Trump vetoed it.

These examples show how presidents have expanded their role in military decision-making, even when doing so challenges Congressional authority and raises constitutional questions.

The 21st Century: A Continuing Struggle

Even as presidents push the boundaries of military power, Congress occasionally reasserts itself. For example:

· After 9/11, Congress passed the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), granting the President broad authority to combat terrorism. That resolution became the legal basis for military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond.

· More recently, debates in Congress have focused on repealing or replacing outdated AUMFs to prevent overreach and restore balance.

Yet the struggle between the branches of government continues, shaped by emerging global threats, shifting political priorities, and evolving public opinion. The U.S. foreign policy process reflects core themes of American government: the separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, and the ongoing tension between executive authority and legislative oversight. As the United States navigates complex challenges—from terrorism and cyberwarfare to climate change and great-power competition—these dynamics remain central to the conduct of American foreign policy. Foreign policy is not just about international relations. It’s about constitutional interpretation, political power, and the role of democratic accountability in a complex and interconnected world.

Open to Debate:
Who Controls the Military—Congress or the President?

The U.S. military is the largest federal agency, with over 1.3 million active-duty personnel, over 800,000 reservists, and hundreds of thousands of civilian employees. Its size and reach raise important constitutional questions: Who ultimately controls the military—the President or Congress?

During the 20th century, especially the Cold War, presidential authority over military and foreign policy expanded significantly. Because nuclear threats demanded rapid decision-making, presidents increasingly acted without waiting for Congress to formally declare war. Under Article II, the president, as Commander in Chief, directs military operations.

Congress, however, retains powerful constitutional tools. Article I gives it authority to declare war, fund and regulate the armed forces, and determine how the military is organized. In response to presidential overreach during Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973, requiring presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and to obtain approval for extended operations. Yet every president since Nixon has questioned the law’s constitutionality, and its limits are rarely enforced.

Two recent examples illustrate the ongoing tension:

· 2019 – Syria: President Trump ordered a rapid U.S. withdrawal, arguing the mission against ISIS was complete. Congressional leaders in both parties objected, citing the risk to Kurdish allies and regional stability. Trump ultimately kept a smaller force in place, responding to political pressure, but not legal compulsion.

· 2021 – Afghanistan: President Biden withdrew all U.S. forces without a congressional vote, ending America’s longest war. Many lawmakers criticized both the decision and the chaotic execution, but congressional pushback came only after the fact.

As global threats, from cyberattacks to great-power rivalry, become more complex and less defined than traditional wars, the balance of power between Congress and the president grows even more consequential.

Who should have the final say over military deployment: the branch that represents the people or the one capable of acting swiftly in crisis? The answer remains open to debate.

Phase I: Isolationism (1789–1898)

The history of American foreign policy can be divided into several distinct phases. In its early years, the United States largely embraced isolationism—a policy of avoiding entanglement in foreign alliances and conflicts, especially in Europe. This approach was rooted in both practical concerns and ideological beliefs.

President George Washington articulated this principle in his Farewell Address of 1796, warning against becoming involved in the "entangling alliances" of European powers. Washington believed the young nation was too politically and militarily fragile to survive the rivalries of global empires. Instead, he urged a focus on building strength at home.

This principle shaped U.S. foreign policy throughout the 19th century. The Monroe Doctrine, issued by President James Monroe in 1823, extended the idea of isolationism into a broader hemispheric policy. The doctrine declared that the United States would not interfere in European affairs and expected European nations to refrain from colonizing or interfering in the Western Hemisphere. Though the U.S. lacked the power to fully enforce this doctrine at the time, it became a cornerstone of American foreign policy for decades.

While the U.S. avoided European conflicts, it expanded aggressively across the North American continent. Key moments of territorial growth included:

· The Louisiana Purchase (1803) under President Thomas Jefferson

· The acquisition of Florida from Spain under President James Monroe

· The annexation of Texas (1845) and victory in the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the U.S. acquiring a vast territory including present-day California, Arizona, and New Mexico

· The peaceful resolution of territorial disputes with Britain in the Pacific Northwest

· The purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867

· The annexation of Hawaii in 1898

Phase II: Emergence as a Global Power (1898–1945)

Phase II of American foreign policy began in 1898 with the Spanish-American War, which marked a decisive shift away from isolationism. Motivated by expansionist ambitions and public outrage over Spanish atrocities in Cuba, President William McKinley led the U.S. into war. The swift victory resulted in the Treaty of Paris, through which the United States acquired its first overseas territories: the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, as well as control over Cuba. These acquisitions signaled the birth of an American colonial empire and the country’s arrival as a global power.

President Theodore Roosevelt expanded this influence with the Roosevelt Corollary (1904) to the Monroe Doctrine, asserting the U.S. right to intervene in Latin America during periods of instability. Known as “gunboat diplomacy,” this policy justified numerous interventions and cemented U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

The high point of this era came in 1917, when the U.S. entered World War I. The Selective Service Act enabled mass enlistment and President Woodrow Wilson framed the war as a fight to “make the world safe for democracy.” Yet after the war, the U.S. rejected Wilson’s League of Nations and returned to isolationism during the 1920s and 1930s.

This stance ended abruptly with World War II. After the attack on Pearl Harbor (1941), the U.S. entered the war, played a decisive role in defeating the Axis powers, and emerged as a global superpower.

The end of WWII marked a final break with isolationism as the U.S. helped build a new international order centered on the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank. This era of sustained global engagement ushered in a new phase: internationalism.

Open to Debate:
Do we still need the United Nations?

The United Nations (UN), established in 1945 with strong leadership from the United States, was designed to promote international peace, security, and cooperation through the principle of collective security. It succeeded the League of Nations, which failed in part due to U.S. non-participation.

Over time, the UN has grown to include nearly 200 member states, reflecting a far more diverse and multipolar world. The United States remains the largest financial contributor, covering more than 22% of the organization’s regular budget. Critics to argue that the institution is slow, inefficient, and sometimes biased against U.S. interests. The General Assembly, where each country has one vote, is frequently cited as a forum for anti-Western or anti-Israel rhetoric.

Supporters, however, point to the UN’s ongoing relevance in addressing global challenges that no single nation can solve alone. UN peacekeeping missions have stabilized conflict zones in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Balkans. Its specialized agencies have played critical roles in promoting human rights, coordinating humanitarian aid, responding to global health crises (such as HIV/AIDS and COVID-19), and setting international standards for everything from aviation to climate change.

U.S. presidents have differed in their approach to the UN. President Donald Trump, during his first term (2017–2021), expressed strong skepticism toward the organization, accusing it of inefficiency and unfairness to the United States. His administration cut funding to certain UN programs, withdrew from UN-related agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization (WHO), and emphasized an “America First” approach. In his second term, Trump continued to question the value of U.S. engagement in multilateral institutions like the UN, arguing that they often constrain American sovereignty and benefit adversaries.

As global power dynamics shift and transnational threats like pandemics, terrorism, and climate change grow more urgent, the question remains: Is the UN still essential for international cooperation, or is it an outdated institution in need of serious reform? The answer remains open to debate.

Phase III: Cold War Internationalism (1945–1991)

Phase III of American foreign policy began at the conclusion of World War II (1945), when the United States emerged as the dominant global power. With unmatched industrial strength and a brief nuclear monopoly, the U.S. helped construct a new world order grounded in democratic governance, liberal capitalism, and collective security. It helped establish the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank. A former ally, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, quickly became a rival by imposing communist regimes across Eastern Europe, sparking the Cold War.

In response, the United States adopted the Truman Doctrine (1947), pledging support for nations resisting communism, and launched the Marshall Plan, providing billions to rebuild Western Europe. During the Berlin Blockade (1948–1949), the U.S. organized the Berlin Airlift, demonstrating its commitment to Europe.

These initiatives formed the basis of containment, a strategy to prevent communist expansion through military alliances, economic aid, and political pressure. Its most important institutional expression was NATO (1949), a collective security alliance declaring that an attack on one member was an attack on all.

The Cold War was defined by the threat of nuclear war. Both superpowers amassed vast arsenals, giving rise to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—the doctrine that a full-scale nuclear exchange would destroy both sides. The danger of miscalculation or rapid escalation produced constant anxiety, most dramatically during the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962).

Although direct U.S.–Soviet conflict was avoided, Cold War tensions erupted in numerous proxy wars. The first major example was the Korean War (1950–1953), in which U.S. and UN forces defended South Korea from a Soviet- and Chinese-backed invasion.

The most divisive proxy conflict was the Vietnam War (1955–1975). Driven by the domino theory, the U.S. escalated from limited support to a massive military commitment. Despite heavy involvement and over 50,000 American deaths, the U.S. withdrew in 1973, and Vietnam was unified under communist rule in 1975, marking a major setback for containment.

Other Cold War flashpoints included:

· The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), in which the U.S. and USSR came to the brink of nuclear war over Soviet missile installations in Cuba, ending in a tense but peaceful resolution.

· The Berlin Wall (1961–1989), built by East Germany to stop the flow of refugees into the West, became the most powerful symbol of communist oppression. Its fall marked the beginning of the end for Soviet dominance in Eastern Europe.

· The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979–1989), aimed at preserving a communist regime, became the USSR’s “Vietnam,” draining resources and morale while empowering U.S.-backed mujahideen fighters.

Throughout the Cold War, American foreign policy alternated between aggressive anti-communist rhetoric and pragmatic realism, sometimes supporting authoritarian regimes if they opposed communism.

The final chapter of the Cold War came with the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev in the mid-1980s. His reforms—glasnost (openness) and perestroika (economic restructuring)—were aimed at saving the Soviet system but instead accelerated its collapse. Gorbachev withdrew from Afghanistan, reduced support for Eastern European regimes, and allowed democratic movements to flourish. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into fifteen independent republics, ending the Cold War and leaving the United States as the world’s sole superpower.

After 1991, when the Cold War ended, both countries reduced their nuclear arsenals. However, since the 2010s, tensions have risen again. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pursued an aggressive foreign policy, including the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, raising concerns about a return to Cold War-style rivalries and the future role of the U.S. in maintaining global security.

Although the Cold War formally ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union, its legacy continues to shape global politics. One of the most consequential post-Cold War developments has been NATO expansion into Easter Europe. In the decades following the Cold War, former Soviet satellite states—including Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic (1999), followed by the Baltic states of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania (2004)—joined the alliance. Russia viewed this expansion as a threat, contributing to clashes over Ukraine.

The war in Ukraine, the largest European conflict since World War II, revived Cold War-style tensions and reaffirmed NATO’s importance. Western nations imposed economic sanctions on Russia and supplied military aid to Ukraine. Finland and Sweden, long neutral, joined NATO (2023), reshaping Northern Europe’s strategic environment. These developments underscore how Cold War alliances and rivalries continue to shape 21st-century U.S. foreign policy.

Open to Debate:
Should the United States Support Ukraine with Military and Financial Assistance?

In 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimean Peninsula, a strategically important region in the Black Sea that had been part of Ukraine since its independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Crimea’s history is complex: it was once controlled by the Crimean Khanate before becoming part of the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century. When Ukraine became an independent nation in 1991, Crimea remained within its borders.

In February 2022, amid growing Ukrainian ties with Western countries and NATO, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In response, the United States and its allies committed extensive military and economic supportto Ukraine’s defense.

Supporters argue that assisting Ukraine is necessary to uphold state sovereignty, defend democratic norms, and deter attempts to redraw international borders by force. Critics warn that continued involvement risks escalating tensions with Russia and drawing the United States deeper into a costly foreign conflict.

Should the United States continue providing military and financial support to Ukraine, or should it pursue a more limited role focused on diplomacy and negotiation? The answer remains open to debate.

Phase IV: The Post–Cold War Era and Terrorism

With the Cold War’s end in 1991, the United States emerged as the world’s sole superpower, shaping a new global order based on democracy, free markets, and international cooperation. The 1990s were marked by optimism as many former authoritarian states transitioned to democracy and the U.S. promoted liberal values worldwide.

However, the collapse of the Soviet Union also brought new challenges. NATO expansion into Eastern European countries, raising tensions with Russia. The U.S. faced difficult questions about engaging rising powers like China and balancing military power with humanitarian goals, including limited interventions in Somalia and the Balkans.

One major new threat was terrorism, especially from Al Qaeda, which carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks. These events led the U.S. to launch wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and adopt the “Bush Doctrine,” emphasizing preemptive action against terrorist threats. Although the initial focus was on defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, these conflicts evolved into long and costly nation-building efforts with mixed results.

Under President Obama, U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq and largely ended combat operations in Afghanistan, while continuing counterterrorism efforts with a lighter footprint. New challenges arose with the rise of ISIS, but over time, the threat from terrorism has diminished relative to earlier decades. Today, terrorism remains a concern but is no longer the central focus of U.S. foreign policy, which increasingly prioritizes strategic competition with China and Russia.

A New Phase in American Foreign Policy

It is often difficult to pinpoint when one era ends and another begins, but a quarter into the 21st century, American foreign policy stands at a historic crossroads. The post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolar dominance is fading. In its place, a more complex and multipolar world has emerged, marked by renewed great-power competition, rising authoritarian regimes, and increasing global instability.

The liberal internationalist belief that global economic interdependence would naturally produce peace and democracy has not fully materialized. Instead, major authoritarian powers such as Russia and China have become more assertive. China has expanded its military presence in the South China Sea, increased pressure on Taiwan, and used economic leverage to bolster its global influence. Russia has pursued an aggressive foreign policy as well, including a prolonged military campaign in Ukraine that has challenged European security and undermined international norms. These developments illustrate the broader shift toward renewed great-power competition in the 21st century.

The United States has historically balanced support for allies with strategic restraint, intervening abroad to promote democracy, protect human rights, or safeguard national security. At the same time, policymakers must weigh the costs of military engagements, the risks of overextension, and the limits of U.S. influence; debates that shape decisions about Ukraine, the Middle East, and other regional crises.

U.S. foreign policy varies across administrations, depending on their approach to alliances, diplomacy, and the use of military and economic power. Some prioritize collective security, while others favor transactional diplomacy, strategic disengagement, or a narrower focus on national self-interest. Regardless of approach, the U.S. continues to provide substantial military and economic aid, engage in diplomacy, and respond to humanitarian crises.

This contrast between strategic approaches reflects a central tension in American foreign policy: balancing global leadership with domestic priorities, navigating great-power competition, and determining the extent of U.S. involvement in regional conflicts. As global tensions rise, policymakers must decide whether the United States will continue to lead the liberal international order or assume a more limited role—shaping both America’s global standing and the future of international stability.

Open to Debate:
How Should the United States Balance Strategic Alliances and Humanitarian Concerns in the Middle East?

The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territories presents a complex challenge for U.S. foreign policy. Historically, the United States has been a strong ally of Israel, providing substantial military aid and diplomatic support. Supporters argue that maintaining this alliance is essential for American strategic interests in the Middle East, helping safeguard a democratic partner in a volatile region and addressing shared security concerns.

At the same time, critics highlight the humanitarian challenges faced by Palestinians in places such as Gaza and the West Bank, where conflict, blockades, and economic hardship have contributed to difficult living conditions. They argue that U.S. policy should place greater emphasis on humanitarian assistance and human rights, and efforts to promote a just and lasting peace.

U.S. policymakers must therefore balance multiple considerations, including strategic alliances, humanitarian concerns, and regional stability. Should the United States prioritize its partnership with Israel, place greater emphasis on the rights and needs of Palestinians, or pursue a balanced approach that seeks to address both security and humanitarian concerns?

The answers remain open to debate, reflecting the enduring moral dilemmas of American foreign policy in the Middle East.

How Much Does the U.S. Spend on Defense?

The United States continues to spend more on its military than any other country in the world. In fiscal year 2024, the Department of Defense had a budget of approximately $850 billion, with additional funds allocated to national security-related programs in other departments, bringing total defense-related spending to around $900 billion. As of 2023, the U.S. military budget exceeded the combined defense spending of the next eight highest-spending countries, including China, Russia, India, and several NATO allies.

However, when viewed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the current level of defense spending is not historically unprecedented. In 2024, U.S. military spending accounted for about 3.1% of GDP, down from Cold War-era peaks, such as 9.4% of GDP in 1968 during the Vietnam War. Over the past 50 years, the average has hovered around 4.1%, meaning today’s spending is actually below that historical average.

Why Does the U.S. Spend So Much on Defense?

Maintaining a modern, technologically advanced military is inherently expensive. Costs include research and development, procurement of advanced weapons systems (like aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, and missile defense systems), intelligence operations, training, military salaries and benefits, and support for military families and veterans.

Spending levels also reflect America’s global role. Unlike most other countries, the United States maintains military bases and deployments around the world, supporting long-standing alliances like NATO and responding to global threats, including terrorism, regional conflicts, cyberattacks, and rising geopolitical competition.

Notably, some NATO allies still fall short of the alliance’s goal that members spend at least 2% of GDP on defense. Meanwhile, peer competitors like China and Russia have been increasing their military investments, often focusing on regional dominance rather than global reach.

Beyond deterrence and defense, the U.S. military also provides global public goods—such as patrolling sea lanes, ensuring freedom of navigation, and responding to humanitarian crises and natural disasters. These responsibilities help protect international trade, promote stability, and uphold international norms and values.

As the United States navigates a more complex and contested international environment, the debate over military spending remains central to its foreign policy, and to broader questions about America’s role in the world.

Key Takeaways

Foreign aid continues to serve a dual purpose in U.S. foreign policy:

· Humanitarian: Addressing poverty, disaster relief, global health (such as AIDS and COVID-19), and education.

· Strategic: Promoting political stability, preventing terrorism, countering rivals, and supporting allies.

Though it often represents less than 1% of the federal budget, foreign aid remains a powerful tool in shaping the global environment in ways that align with American interests and values.

Open to Debate:
Should the United States contribute more in foreign aid?

The United States is often viewed as the world's most generous donor of foreign aid. In raw dollars, this is true. In 2023, the U.S. provided approximately $34.73 billion in foreign aid, more than any other country. Germany followed with $25.01 billion, while the United Kingdom ($18.10 billion), Japan ($11.46 billion), and France ($11.33 billion) followed among the top contributors.

However, when measured as a percentage of Gross National Income (GNI), a common international benchmark, the picture changes dramatically. U.S. foreign aid amounts to just 0.16% of GNI, far below the 0.40% average among advanced industrialized nations. By comparison, Denmark (0.81%), Norway, and the Netherlands all contribute significantly more relative to the size of their economies.

Foreign aid also makes up a very small share of the overall U.S. federal budget—just 0.44%, despite widespread public misperceptions that it represents a much larger portion of government spending.

So, should the United States increase its foreign aid contributions?

Supporters argue that foreign aid is a powerful tool for promoting global development, reducing poverty, strengthening democratic institutions, and preventing the conditions that can lead to terrorism or mass migration. They also contend that a more stable and prosperous world ultimately serves U.S. interests.

Critics, on the other hand, question the effectiveness of foreign aid and argue that it can lead to dependency, corruption, or mismanagement. They also point out that many U.S. aid recipients do not consistently support American positions in the United Nations with 74% voting against the U.S. on key resolutions in recent years.

Ultimately, the debate touches on deeper questions about America's role in the world: Is it a moral obligation for a wealthy nation to help others? Or should foreign aid be tied more directly to strategic interests and measurable outcomes? The answer remains open to debate.