A Close Look at USAIDs Budget: Comparison with Domestic Spending & Foreign Aid

Evaluating USAID’s Budget: A Comparative Look at Foreign Aid and Domestic Spending

Discussions about government expenditures often involve questions about the necessity and efficiency of foreign aid. In recent years, debates over the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have intensified, with some arguing for its reduction or elimination to save taxpayer dollars. But how much does the U.S. actually spend on USAID compared to other major budget items, and what are the broader implications?

Understanding USAID’s Budget in Context

USAID is responsible for administering the majority of U.S. foreign aid, covering humanitarian assistance, economic development, health programs, and disaster relief. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, USAID’s total budget was approximately $29.4 billion. While this figure might seem substantial, it represents just 0.5% of the total U.S. federal budget, which stood at $6.13 trillion in 2023.

For comparison:

• The Department of Defense (DoD) was allocated $816.7 billion in FY 2023.

• The Department of Education had a budget of $79.6 billion, which is 2.7 times larger than USAID’s budget.

• Tax breaks for the top 1% through capital gains and estate tax policies cost the government over $90 billion annually—three times the USAID budget.

This raises a question: If budget cuts are intended to address wasteful spending, why do discussions often target USAID, an agency that makes up a fraction of federal spending?

What Does USAID Actually Fund?

USAID’s budget is distributed across multiple sectors, with major allocations including:

• Global Health: $9.2 billion for combating infectious diseases, maternal and child health, and HIV/AIDS prevention.

• Humanitarian Assistance: $10.5 billion for emergency food aid, refugee support, and disaster relief.

• Economic Development: $3.5 billion for infrastructure, governance reforms, and private sector investments in developing nations.

• Climate and Environmental Initiatives: $1.3 billion for global conservation efforts and energy security.

Despite these investments, USAID’s funding has often been a focal point for budget reduction efforts. However, research suggests that foreign aid can have long-term benefits, including improving global stability and reducing the need for costly military interventions.

Comparing USAID to Other Budget Expenditures

To better contextualize USAID’s financial impact, let’s compare it to other notable federal expenditures:

While USAID’s budget is often scrutinized, comparing it to other major areas of federal spending places its size into perspective. The Department of Defense (DoD) budget for FY 2023 was $816.7 billion, making it nearly 27 times larger than USAID’s entire budget. In contrast, the F-35 fighter jet program alone is projected to cost $1.7 trillion over its lifetime, which exceeds USAID’s entire annual budget by nearly 60 times. Even smaller military expenditures outpace USAID in specific areas; for instance, the U.S. military spends $437 million annually on military bands, a figure that is larger than the $260 million allocated for USAID’s democracy promotion efforts in 2022.

Domestically, spending patterns also reveal interesting comparisons. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which supports low-income families, received $127 billion in 2023, a figure four times larger than USAID’s entire funding. Additionally, tax breaks for the oil and gas industry cost the U.S. government around $20 billion annually, or two-thirds of USAID’s total budget. Even more striking, the federal government loses $1.3 trillion annually due to tax avoidance by corporations and high-net-worth individuals, an amount that could fund USAID for over 40 years.

Is Cutting USAID an Effective Cost-Saving Strategy?

While some argue that reducing USAID’s budget could save taxpayers money, the overall fiscal impact is relatively small. Cutting the entire agency would save just 0.5% of the federal budget—a minor reduction compared to addressing tax loopholes or inefficiencies in defense procurement.

Moreover, foreign aid often prevents costly future expenditures. Every $1 spent on conflict prevention saves an estimated $26 to $103 in future military spending . Reducing global poverty and instability can curtail migration pressures, easing domestic spending on border enforcement and emergency responses.

The Larger Debate: What Are the True Priorities?

Ultimately, discussions about cutting USAID’s budget raise broader questions about national priorities. If the primary goal is cost reduction, why are significantly larger budgetary line items, such as tax loopholes or defense overspending, rarely placed under the same scrutiny?

The numbers suggest that foreign aid is not the driving factor of the U.S. deficit. Instead, structural inefficiencies in tax policies, military expenditures, and corporate subsidies contribute far more to government spending. If the goal is truly to maximize efficiency, then a broader analysis of fiscal policy, beyond just USAID, is essential.

Subscribe to The Catalyst Network

Building a network of disruptors, visionaries, and policy leaders shaping the future.