.
The American foreign aid program is under the greatest scrutiny that it’s been under since Vietnam, as the President proposes sweeping changes to, and reductions in, both bilateral and multilateral foreign aid. The Congressional foreign aid debate promises to be as divisive as anything currently before the Congress; and it will turn to a very large extent on how the foreign aid’s four key constituencies weigh in.
For almost ten years, before I made a career switch to the technology industry, I worked nearly full time to develop and expand U.S. public support for foreign aid, culminating in my serving as the senior federal official responsible for public affairs for both bilateral and multilateral foreign aid. Although that was a while ago, I learned a lot then about what it takes to get organized public, and thus Congressional, support for foreign aid and what can go wrong. Here’s what I learned.
The modern foreign aid program has its origins in the 1948 Marshall Plan and the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. Both were offspring of the Cold War, since foreign aid was considered a primary means to support pro-American factions, encourage market economies, and strengthen friendly economies. Its main justification was that it deterred people—first in Europe and later in developing countries—from both the attraction of Communism and the influence of the Soviet Union. As a matter of American political support, however, foreign aid has rested on four constituencies:
- Political/military interests, found mostly in the intelligence community, the State and Defense Departments, security-oriented commentators/media/ think tanks and security-oriented academia.
- Humanitarian interests, found mostly in religious, ethnic, and civic groups.
- Commercial interests, found mostly in businesses and business groups that have investments in or trade with the countries that receive foreign aid.
- The agencies, contractors, and subcontractors that actually manage and administer foreign aid, most of whose employees are highly educated and politically literate.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Op-Ed: Who Will Save U.S. Foreign Aid?

September 29, 2017
The American foreign aid program is under the greatest scrutiny that it’s been under since Vietnam, as the President proposes sweeping changes to, and reductions in, both bilateral and multilateral foreign aid. The Congressional foreign aid debate promises to be as divisive as anything currently before the Congress; and it will turn to a very large extent on how the foreign aid’s four key constituencies weigh in.
For almost ten years, before I made a career switch to the technology industry, I worked nearly full time to develop and expand U.S. public support for foreign aid, culminating in my serving as the senior federal official responsible for public affairs for both bilateral and multilateral foreign aid. Although that was a while ago, I learned a lot then about what it takes to get organized public, and thus Congressional, support for foreign aid and what can go wrong. Here’s what I learned.
The modern foreign aid program has its origins in the 1948 Marshall Plan and the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act. Both were offspring of the Cold War, since foreign aid was considered a primary means to support pro-American factions, encourage market economies, and strengthen friendly economies. Its main justification was that it deterred people—first in Europe and later in developing countries—from both the attraction of Communism and the influence of the Soviet Union. As a matter of American political support, however, foreign aid has rested on four constituencies:
- Political/military interests, found mostly in the intelligence community, the State and Defense Departments, security-oriented commentators/media/ think tanks and security-oriented academia.
- Humanitarian interests, found mostly in religious, ethnic, and civic groups.
- Commercial interests, found mostly in businesses and business groups that have investments in or trade with the countries that receive foreign aid.
- The agencies, contractors, and subcontractors that actually manage and administer foreign aid, most of whose employees are highly educated and politically literate.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.