Which U.S. aid accounts (e.g., FMF, ESF, humanitarian) contributed most to the top recipients’ totals in FY2023?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In FY2023 U.S. assistance was heavily concentrated in a few countries, and the largest shares of those countries’ totals came from three broad account-types: direct budget support and emergency economic assistance for Ukraine; military assistance for longtime security partners like Israel; and humanitarian and development relief for countries in crisis such as Ethiopia, Jordan, Egypt and Afghanistan (Congressional Research Service; Pew Research; ForeignAssistance.gov) [1][2][3].
1. Why the question matters: concentrated aid, concentrated account types
The top 10 bilateral recipients accounted for roughly 62% of U.S. aid obligations in FY2023, so understanding which accounts drove those totals reveals policy priorities—security, wartime stabilization, and humanitarian relief—not merely country names (Congressional Research Service) [4]. The CRS and public data platforms show that when a recipient’s needs are acute (war, occupation, or mass displacement) the United States leans on large, flexible accounts or military lines to deliver big, rapid flows [1][3].
2. Ukraine: dominated by direct budget and emergency economic assistance
Ukraine was the single largest recipient in FY2023, receiving about $16.6 billion, and reporting indicates most of that sum was direct budget support designed to keep government operations and society functioning amid Russia’s invasion—i.e., large economic/stabilization transfers rather than routine development grants (Pew Research; Better World Campaign summary citing FY2023 totals) [2][5]. Public U.S. reporting and analysis emphasize that these were exceptional, crisis-driven payments that differ in character from multiyear development projects [1].
3. Israel: military assistance was the dominant contribution
Israel remained one of the largest single-country recipients; reporting for FY2023 shows it received about $3.3 billion in military-related U.S. assistance, making defense/military accounts the primary contributors to its total in that year (Pew Research) [2]. That pattern follows longstanding U.S. policy and annual appropriations that prioritize military security assistance for Israel even as larger, non‑military accounts flow elsewhere [6].
4. Humanitarian crises: humanitarian and development accounts lifted totals for others
Other top recipients—Ethiopia, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan—received substantial shares of their FY2023 totals from humanitarian and development accounts because of drought, conflict, displacement and governance fragility; CRS reporting and U.S. aid-data platforms show crisis relief and global health/development programs make up a large part of aid to such countries (Congressional Research Service; ForeignAssistance.gov) [1][3]. Where large-scale humanitarian need exists, U.S. obligations skew toward humanitarian assistance and flexible ESF-like economic support mechanisms that can be moved quickly.
5. What “accounts” mean in practice and where reporting is limited
Public CRS summaries and ForeignAssistance.gov categorize aid by purpose and implementing agency, but not every public summary itemizes every sub-account (FMF, ESF, specific humanitarian accounts) for every country in a single chart; thus the clearest, sourced statements are by broad account type—military assistance, direct budget support/emergency economic assistance, and humanitarian/development assistance—rather than granular line-by-line FMF vs. ESF splits in every recipient total [1][3]. Available reporting explicitly ties Ukraine to budget support and Israel to military aid, and describes other top recipients as driven by humanitarian and development obligations [2][1].
6. Alternative perspectives and implicit agendas in the sources
CRS frames aid as serving security, commercial and goodwill goals and notes policy proposals to reorganize authorities—an implicit argument that account structure shapes outcomes and congressional control matters (Congressional Research Service) [1]. Advocacy summaries (e.g., NGO or pro‑aid briefs) emphasize lifesaving humanitarian uses, while some political narratives stress security or “account consolidation” as cost‑saving; these competing framings reflect stakeholders’ agendas—defense contractors, humanitarian NGOs, and appropriators—with different interests in emphasizing military versus civilian accounts [1][6].
7. Bottom line
For FY2023 the largest contributors to the top recipients’ totals were: for Ukraine, direct budget and emergency economic assistance (the biggest single-country line at ~$16.6 billion); for Israel, military assistance (about $3.3 billion); and for several other top recipients, humanitarian and development accounts—together these three account-types explain the lion’s share of the concentrated FY2023 totals [2][1][3]. Public CRS and U.S. data portals provide account‑level detail but, for granular FMF vs. ESF numeric splits by country, users should consult ForeignAssistance.gov and agency notifications that publish full obligation tables [3][1].