The disruption of U.S. overseas aid operations is placing the Trump administration at odds with a growing majority of the American public, according to a new survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation.
The Feb. 6-7 study found 89% of Americans want the U.S. to spend at least 1% of the federal budget on international aid, which is the typical level. The majority includes 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats.
A 58% majority also opposes closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development, even if its functions are moved to the State Department as some government officials have suggested. Majorities opposed to abolishing USAID include 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents, while 60% of Republicans agree with the move.
The survey was conducted after the administration ordered a halt to all USAID spending and later placed about 10,000 of its employees on administrative leave. These actions come as the White House continues to purge other federal agencies of personnel.
Steven Kull
“The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values,” Trump said in the executive order initiating the USAID shut-down.
Any assumptions the American public is opposed to foreign aid, doesn’t care about it or may have isolationist attitudes simply isn’t the case, said Steven Kull, lead researcher for the survey, during a Feb. 18 Brookings Institution webinar.
“We’ve been studying this assumption now for three decades, going back to 1995, and it has consistently proven not to be the case. In fact, the number of people who say foreign aid should be cut or is too much has actually been going down over the decades.”
“The number of people who say foreign aid should be cut or is too much has actually been going down over the decades.”
Particularly concerning about the USAID controversy is the administration’s unilateral circumvention of Congress, which prevents citizens voicing concerns about the situation with their representatives, said Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow in governance studies at Brookings. “If the kinds of policies we’re seeing were going through Congress, there would be an opportunity to have an educational process occur without the tremendous upheaval and harm that is being done through these sort of unaccountable actions.”
One of the negative effects is a growing gap between policy and the public, she added. “You see that enormous distance between what Americans want and what’s actually happening. The disconnect between public opinion and public policy has always been wide, but it has grown wider.”
Vanessa Williamson
But respondents made their preferences known in the University of Maryland survey, including 67% who support maintaining or increasing foreign aid for education, 65% for the environment, 64% for global health, 60% for human rights and democracy and 56% for both economic development and humanitarian relief.
A majority of Republicans favor slashing some programs, including up to 19% who prefer cutting them “a little.” Less than half support reducing programs “somewhat” (up to 30%) or eliminating them altogether (up to 20%), the study found.
Survey participants were presented with arguments for and against continuing international assistance programs. “The argument that did best overall focused on how aid ‘saves lives, alleviates suffering and hunger’ and ‘helps communities recover,’” the report states. Nearly 80% considered this reason most convincing, including 87% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans.
“The con arguments that focused on how ‘taking care of problems at home is more important’ and that there is ‘waste and corruption’ in foreign aid were also found convincing by around three quarters. Over seven in 10 also found convincing the counter argument that studies have found that claims of substantial waste and fraud are exaggerated.”
Former Republican congressman Charles Dent said he frequently fielded questions from Pennsylvania constituents about the value of spending roughly 1% of the federal budget on foreign aid.
Charles Dent
His answers frequently focused on domestic economic benefits, including showing voters how their economies benefit when locally made or grown products are included in aid packages. “You can talk about this issue in different ways to different people,” he said. “When you talk to the farmers, they have skin in the game. They are sending food, so it’s an important part of their own business model.”
People of faith almost always were persuaded when it was explained that many of the nongovernmental organizations distributing aid were faith-based groups, and that foreign aid saves lives, he added.
Dent said he frequently reminded Republicans foreign aid plays a key role in national defense by providing social and political stability in parts of the world where the U.S. needs allies. “I would say the United States has a national security posture that is three-headed: diplomacy, defense and development. We spend about $800 billion a year on defense, and we spend about $50 billion on diplomacy, and on development, maybe we will spend close to $40 billion.”
But all arguments are pointless if the U.S. House and Senate are unable to maintain their historic spending power, Williamson added.
“We really are outside of experience, broadly speaking, in terms of the way that power is being asserted by the current executive. We really are in new times in terms of thinking about whether Congress will continue to assert the authority that was vested by the Constitution.”