US Spending on Foreign Aid
The federal government has been spending about one percent of its budget on foreign aid, for humanitarian relief, global health, economic development, education, the environment, and democracy and human rights.
The amount that the US spends, and for what purposes, has been a source of political disagreement.
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Respondents were presented the following information about US spending on foreign aid, relative to the federal budget and other developed countries: Spending on all foreign aid, including military aid, generally makes up about 1% of the Federal budget, or about $72 billion. So, if you think about how much you contribute in taxes every year–about 1% of that goes to foreign aid. For the median American taxpayer that is about $60 per year. In comparison to other developed countries, the US spends more in total than others. However, relative to the size of its economy, the US spends less than most other developed countries, and less than the average. Respondents then evaluated arguments for and against foreign aid in general. All of the arguments were found convincing by bipartisan majorities.
|
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Asked what they think, "would be an appropriate percentage of the federal budget to go to foreign aid, if any," a large bipartisan majority of 84% said one percent or higher (Republicans 84%, Democrats 94%). The median response was 10 percent (Republicans 5 percent, Democrats 10 percent). Perceptions of US Spending on Foreign Aid Respondents were sked, "Just based on what you know, please tell me your hunch about what percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid." The median response was 20 percent (Republicans 20 percent, Democrats 15 percent). The US has historically spent about one percent of its federal budget on foreign aid. Asked, "If you think about the amount of aid that the US gives to less developed countries, as a percentage of the US’ total economy, how do you think this compares with the percentage that the other industrialized countries give," a bipartisan majority of 64% said the US gives more (Republicans 70%, Democrats 59%). The US has generally given less than nearly all other industrialized countries, as a percentage of its Gross National Product. |
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Asked along a seven point scale whether they want to increase, keep the same, reduce or eliminate foreign aid spending on education, which they were informed is $1.1 billion a year, a bipartisan majority of 67% chose to increase funding or keep it the same (Republicans 54%, Democrats 81%). Just 9% chose to eliminate spending.
More Details Briefing Respondents were informed that: For aid to less developed countries to train teachers, encourage school attendance (especially for girls) such as by offering school lunches, and improve literacy, the US government has been spending about $1.1 billion a year. Arguments The pro and con arguments were each found convincing by a majority, but the pro argument did substantially better, with a bipartisan majority of nearly eight in ten finding it convincing.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they think the US should spend more, about the same, less, or none at all on education, along a seven point scale. A bipartisan majority of 67% chose to increase funding (36%) or keep it the same (31%), including 54% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats.
Demographics
|
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Respondents were asked along a seven point scale whether they want to increase, keep the same, reduce or eliminate foreign aid spending on global health, which they were informed is $5.6 billion a year. A majority of 56% chose to keep it the same (28%) or increase funding (28%), including 70% of Democrats, 42% of Republicans, and 61% of independents. Another 15% chose "a little less" (Republicans 16%, Democrats 13%).Thus, a bipartisan majority of 71% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 58%, Democrats 83%). Just 8% chose none at all, including just 11% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats.
More Details Briefing Respondents were informed that: For humanitarian relief, the US has been spending about $15.6 billion a year.4 This aid is used for caring for people who urgently need food, medical care, or shelter because they are victims of a disaster like famine, a flood, or a war. Arguments The pro and con arguments were each found convincing by a majority, but the pro arguments did substantially better, with bipartisan majorities of nearly eight in ten finding them convincing.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they think the US should spend more, about the same, less, or none at all on humanitarian relief along a seven-point scale. Just 8% chose none at all, including just 11% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats. A majority of 56% chose to keep it the same (28%) or increase funding (28%), including 70% of Democrats, 42% of Republicans, and 61% of independents. Another 15% chose "a little less" (Republicans 16%, Democrats 13%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 71% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 58%, Democrats 83%). Looked at another way, however, a majority of Republicans chose to reduce spending (57%).
Demographics
|
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Respondents were asked along a seven point scale whether they want to increase, keep the same, reduce or eliminate foreign aid spending on global health, which they were informed is $16.1 billion a year. A majority of 64% chose to keep it the same (32%) or increase funding (32%), including 79% of Democrats, half of Republicans (50%), and 67% of independents. Another 12% chose "a little less" (Republicans 15%, Democrats 8%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 76% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 65%, Democrats 87%). Just 8% chose none at all, including just 12% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats.
More Details Briefing Respondents were informed that: For health aid, the US has been spending about $16.1 billion a year. This aid is used to:
Arguments Both the pro and con argument were found convincing by a majority, but the pro argument did substantially better, with a bipartisan majority of 80% finding it convincing. The con argument was only found convincing by half of Democrats and independents, but a majority of Republicans.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they think the US should spend more, about the same, less, or none at all on foreign aid for global health, along a seven point scale. Just 8% chose none at all, including just 12% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats. A majority of 64% chose to keep it the same (32%) or increase funding (32%), including 79% of Democrats, half of Republicans (50%), and 67% of independents. Another 12% chose "a little less" (Republicans 15%, Democrats 8%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 76% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 65%, Democrats 87%).
Demographics
|
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Respondents were asked along a seven point scale whether they want to increase, keep the same, reduce or eliminate foreign aid spending on economic development, which they were informed is $19.4 billion a year. A majority of 56% chose to keep it the same (26%) or increase funding (30%), including 70% of Democrats, 43% of Republicans and 56% of independents. Another 17% chose "a little less" (Republicans 19%, Democrats 14%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 73% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 62%, Democrats 84%). Just 9% chose none at all, including just 13% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats.
More Details Briefing Respondents were informed that: To help less developed countries improve their food production, develop their infrastructure, and build their private enterprises and financial systems, the US has been spending about $19.4 billion a year. Arguments The pro and con arguments were each found convincing by a majority, but the pro arguments did substantially better.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they think the US should spend more, about the same, less, or none at all on economic development, along a seven point scale. Just 9% chose none at all, including just 13% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats. A majority of 56% chose to keep it the same (26%) or increase funding (30%), including 70% of Democrats, 43% of Republicans and 56% of independents. Another 17% chose "a little less" (Republicans 19%, Democrats 14%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 73% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 62%, Democrats 84%). Looked at another way, however, a majority of Republicans chose to reduce spending (57%).
Demographics
|
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Respondents were sked along a seven point scale whether they want to increase, keep the same, reduce or eliminate foreign aid spending on economic development, which they were informed is $1.4 billion a year. A majority of 65% chose to keep it the same (33%) or increase funding (32%), including 82% of Democrats, 49% of Republicans and 65% of independents. Another 11% chose "a little less" (Republicans 14%, Democrats 8%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 76% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 63%, Democrats 90%). Just 11% chose none at all, including just 17% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed that: For environmental aid to less developed countries, the US has been spending about $1.4 billion a year. This aid is used to help countries preserve their environment, reduce pollution, transition to energy sources that produce less or no pollution, and prepare better for natural disasters. Arguments The pro and con arguments were each found convincing by a majority, but the pro argument did substantially better, with a bipartisan majority of seven in ten finding it convincing.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they think the US should spend more, about the same, less, or none at all on the environment, along a seven point scale. Just 11% chose none at all, including just 17% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats. A majority of 65% chose to keep it the same (33%) or increase funding (32%), including 82% of Democrats, 49% of Republicans and 65% of independents. Another 11% chose "a little less" (Republicans 14%, Democrats 8%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 76% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 63%, Democrats 90%). Looked at another way, however, a bare majority of Republicans chose to reduce spending (51%).
Demographics
|
|
Survey: PPC, February 2025 Respondents were asked along a seven point scale whether they want to increase, keep the same, reduce or eliminate foreign aid spending on democracy and human rights, which they were informed is $2.3 billion a year. A majority of 60% chose to keep it the same (26%) or increase funding (34%), including 76% of Democrats, 47% of Republicans and 55% of independents. Another 12% chose "a little less" (Republicans 14%, Democrats 11%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 72% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 61%, Democrats 86%). Just 14% chose to eliminate spending, including just 20% of Republicans and 6% of Democrats. More Details Briefing Respondents were informed that: For aid that goes to further the development of democracy, human rights, a free press, and the rule of law, the US has been spending about $2.3 billion a year. Nearly all of this goes to non-profits and international organizations with specialized skills, rather than directly to foreign governments. Arguments The pro and con arguments were each found convincing by a similar bipartisan majority, but the pro argument did slightly better overall.
Final Recommendation In the end, respondents were asked whether they think the US should spend more, about the same, less, or none at all on the environment, along a seven point scale. Just 14% chose none at all, including just 20% of Republicans and 6% of Democrats. A majority of 60% chose to keep it the same (26%) or increase funding (34%), including 76% of Democrats, 47% of Republicans and 55% of independents. Another 12% chose "a little less" (Republicans 14%, Democrats 11%). Thus, a bipartisan majority of 72% did not choose to make substantial cuts to spending (Republicans 61%, Democrats 86%). However, looked at another way, a small majority of Republicans chose to reduce spending (53%).
Demographics
|
