By
Amidst Donald Trump ridiculous rhetoric about NATO and Nikki Haley’s husband over the weekend, the former president’s latest statement on foreign aid went largely overlooked. That’s understandable but unfortunate, since the Republican’s newly stated vision was, and is, radical in important ways.
As the Senate prepared to pass a security aid package benefiting Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, Trump turned to his social media platform on Saturday afternoon to tout a new position on how the United States should approach investments abroad.
In a 126-word, all-caps screed, the Republican declared, “From this point forward, are you listening U.S. Senate(?), no money in the form of foreign aid should be given to any country unless it is done as a loan, not just a giveaway.” The GOP’s likely 2024 nominee went to write, “We should never give money anymore without the hope of a payback, or without ‘strings’ attached. The United States of America should be ‘stupid’ no longer!”
When this failed to generate much attention, I more or less assumed that the online tirade would go ignored, and the former president’s allies would pretend the statement never happened. That assumption was wrong. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, for example, announced his opposition to a bipartisan security aid package overnight, and made this argument while explaining his position:
“I believe the solution to this problem is the following formula. The supplemental aid package should be a loan to the countries in question, as suggested by President Trump. A loan on friendly terms allows America, who is deeply in debt, a chance to get our money back and changes the paradigm of how we help others. President Trump is right to insist that we think outside the box.”
The South Carolinian added that he hoped to see the GOP-led House “turn the supplemental aid package into a loan instead of a grant” — just like the former president demanded.
Remember, it was just nine months ago when Graham declared, “To know that my commitment to Ukraine has drawn the ire of Putin’s regime brings me immense joy. I will continue to stand with and for Ukraine’s freedom until every Russian soldier is expelled from Ukrainian territory.”
Evidently, the boast came with fine print: The Republican senator would stand “with and for Ukraine’s freedom,” but he’d vote against a bipartisan bill to help secure that freedom, and he’d expect Ukraine to pay the United States back for its support.
What Trump and Graham may not fully appreciate is why, exactly, the United States makes foreign aid investments: It’s not simply about charity, it’s about our own country’s interests.
When we extend aid to Ukraine, for example, it’s partly about coming to the assistance of an ally in need, but it’s also rooted in the realization that the United States does not benefit when foreign autocrats are told they can invade their neighbors with impunity. What's more, much of the money will directly benefit American companies and American workers.
Similarly, when we make medical aid available to developing countries, it helps stop the spread of diseases that can spread. When we make economic aid available to developing countries, it addresses everything from crime to immigration to families’ wellbeing, while preventing global rivals from extending their spheres of influence.
These investments need not be seen through a transactional lens. The United States invests in foreign aid because the United States benefits from foreign aid.
Expecting countries to pay us back might “change the paradigm,” but not for the better.