Foreign aid has been an effective and inexpensive tool, compared to military aid, for big powers like the US to expand influence around the world. By disengaging with much of the Global South, the US will lose support and influence if it slashes foreign aid programs.

One week into Trump’s inauguration, Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered a 90-day freeze on all foreign assistance from his office pending results of the review which aims at ensuring that aid money is not only spent effectively, but also in compliance with the “conservative” values representing the new government.

Rubio has since given a waiver from the suspension of food and military programs for Israel and Egypt, and some humanitarian programs critical to the lives of people. But by and large, most aid programs have been frozen for the next three months.

If and when the aid freeze is lifted, we can expect total funding to be slashed.

Almost certain to be getting the axe are programs representing “liberal” values, such as those related to abortion and family planning, the promotion of diversity, equality and inclusion, particularly on women and the LGBTQ communities. Given Trump’s cynical view on global warming, it is almost certain he will terminate programs dealing with climate change and climate justice.

In 2023, the US government gave US$68 billion in foreign assistance to 204 countries/regions. That’s almost the entire world. But Trump will be wrong to acquiesce to populist demands from his base supporters to reallocate foreign aid money to spending programs at home.

For one, the money accounts for only 0.22 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), which is well short of the 0.7 percent mandated by the United Nations. Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark and Sweden are among the few countries that surpass the limit.

More importantly, that paltry sum has helped the US expand its influence globally, which is one reason why the US was once indeed regarded as one of the greatest nations, if not the greatest. If Trump’s intention now is to reclaim that position, slashing foreign aid is certainly the wrong way to go about it.

Not that recipient countries, mostly developing countries, are ungrateful for the assistance.

Indonesia is one of the beneficiaries of US foreign aid programs, receiving $233 million in 2023, with money going to programs for foreign military financing, sustainable energy, countering TB, urban water supply and many others. A significant portion flowed to civil society organizations promoting development, democracy, justice and human rights

More money flowed during Indonesia’s transition to democracy at the turn of the millennium and the preceding Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. Those were critical years for Indonesia and we survived thanks to the generosity of foreign governments, including the US, and international donors.

Rubio’s order to temporarily freeze US foreign aid programs already hurts millions of people around the world who had relied on the programs. Now governments and civil society organizations have to brace for the likelihood that many programs will be terminated for economic or political reasons.

They should already be looking at alternative sources of funding. If this is going to be the trend with other donor countries, they have to start looking at their internal resources and become more self-reliant. Foreign aid was never meant to be permanent anyway.

At the end of the day, aid as a foreign policy tool has served more governments than the recipient countries or peoples. The money always comes with strings attached, some more stringent and others less so. But it was never a free lunch.

Trump has every right to insist on more bucks for every dollar his government spends on foreign aid, but recipient countries do not have to succumb to the stringent political demands. But if the US finds that it is losing power and influence globally, then we know the reason why.