Which countries received the largest shares of U.S. foreign assistance in FY2023 and how concentrated was that spending?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
In FY2023 U.S. foreign assistance was geographically broad but financially concentrated: Congress appropriated roughly $66.1 billion in foreign assistance, about 175–177 countries and territories received some U.S. aid, and a small set of recipients accounted for a large share of dollars (notably Ukraine at $16.6 billion) [1][2][3][4]. The top 10 recipients alone represented about 62% of bilateral aid obligations, underscoring heavy concentration on crisis- and security-driven priorities [5].
1. The big headline: Ukraine dominated FY2023 funding
By most publicly available tallies, Ukraine was the single largest beneficiary in FY2023, receiving about $16.6 billion — funding that analysts and agencies describe as largely direct budget and security-related support tied to sustaining the country under Russian attack — a sum that represents a large fraction of total U.S. foreign assistance that year [4][3][6][1].
2. Who else made the top tier and why those countries
Beyond Ukraine, longstanding top recipients included countries often identified as strategic allies, humanitarian crisis zones, counterterrorism partners and global-health focus countries; media and CRS reporting cite Israel, Ethiopia, Jordan, Egypt and Afghanistan among major recipients in FY2023, with Israel receiving roughly $3.3 billion in military aid that year [2][4][7]. The mix reflects congressional and executive priorities that tie aid to national security, humanitarian response and health diplomacy [7][2].
3. How concentrated was the spending — the numbers that matter
The picture is sharply concentrated: Congress reported $66.1 billion in FY2023 foreign assistance, while CRS analysis and Treasury-level data show the top 10 recipients accounted for about 62% of aid obligations — meaning a relatively small group of countries absorbed the majority of U.S. bilateral assistance dollars [1][5][7]. Simple cross-referencing of the Ukraine figure ($16.6 billion) against the congressional total implies Ukraine alone accounted for roughly one quarter of that $66.1 billion envelope, illustrating the outsized impact of one crisis on the annual portfolio [4][1].
4. Why the concentration is not random — policy drivers and multilateral limits
Concentration mirrors policy: large emergency or security commitments (e.g., war-related assistance to Ukraine or military financing to Israel) and major humanitarian crises drive big, focused disbursements, and Congress has historically favored bilateral channels that allow tighter legislative control — while core multilateral contributions remained a smaller share [7][2][6]. DonorTracker and CRS note that while multilateral core contributions are meaningful, the U.S. still routes a large share of aid bilaterally, reinforcing concentration around a subset of recipients [6][2].
5. Limits of available reporting and alternative perspectives
Public sources agree on the broad pattern but differ slightly on counts (CRS cites roughly 175 countries; other agency summaries give 177), and detailed line-item uses vary across agency reports and fiscal accounting conventions, so exact shares depend on how military financing, multilateral core contributions and emergency supplemental packages are categorized — observers sympathetic to concentrated, strategic aid argue this amplifies U.S. leverage and effectiveness, while critics contend it skews aid away from development needs in lower-profile countries [2][3][6][5]. Data portals like ForeignAssistance.gov provide granular country-by-country tables for deeper verification but the headline remains: a relatively small group of countries captured the majority of FY2023 U.S. foreign assistance dollars [8][9].