The Hill: Administration’s dangerous position on foreign aid will exacerbate international health crises
Hugh Evans, CEO of Global Citizen

“…President Trump’s hostility to foreign aid is nothing new … His 2018 budget proposed a 28 percent cut to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). A bipartisan coalition of senators, including Republicans like Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, thankfully opposed Trump’s cuts. But the president’s recent comments indicate that he is going to continue his assault on development aid. The cuts he favors will be painful for vulnerable communities around the globe, since the U.S. remains the biggest international donor in absolute terms. And Trump has pushed them despite the evidence that foreign aid actually works. … The leaders of wealthy nations should not see foreign aid as a reward that they dole out to countries that please them and withhold from those that don’t. They should consider it an investment, not just in the potential of impoverished peoples but also in international security. American aid money is crucial in containing international health crises … The president would be better served by listening to his nation’s aid workers, rather than eliminating them (1/12).

The Hill: Foreign aid is something that makes America great
Cindy Huang, senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development

“…Despite being less than one percent of the federal budget, our development and humanitarian investments play a critical role in protecting U.S. national security, and promoting American interests. … [Trump’s] threats to withdraw foreign aid in a tit-for-tat manner can have harmful consequences for the U.S. First, the core function of foreign aid is to build partnerships over time, and foster collaboration to solve urgent global challenges when they arise — especially before they can reach our own shores. … Second, taking away foreign aid makes the world more dangerous for everyone. … Third, as these threats to foreign aid and our diplomatic relationships continue, they will undermine U.S. soft power around the globe and exclude us from advancing our interests in global discussions. President Trump’s public threats — even if the aid continues to flow — mean that countries will look elsewhere for reliable partnerships. … Finally, U.S. foreign aid serves our economic and commercial interests. … The argument that cutting foreign aid puts ‘America first’ just doesn’t add up. These cuts would make us less safe, less influential, and less prosperous…” (1/13).