Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the primary goals and objectives of the Biden administration's foreign aid policy in 2024?
Executive summary
The Biden administration’s 2024 foreign aid policy centers on a mix of development, humanitarian, democracy-promotion, climate and security priorities, implemented through a combination of a strategic development framework, a $95 billion national security package, and the President’s 2025 budget proposals [1] [2] [3]. The legislative package channels large sums toward military and humanitarian assistance—most notably for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific—while USAID and State receive substantial development funding; budget constraints and competing priorities shape trade-offs between defense, humanitarian relief, and long-term development [2] [4] [5].
1. Why Washington framed aid as both development and strategic competition
The administration published a global development strategy in 2024 that lists five core objectives: poverty reduction, health and human capital investments, decarbonization, democracy and human rights promotion, and humanitarian response, signaling an integrated approach tying development to geopolitical aims [1]. That strategy explicitly links development tools to U.S. geopolitical competition and resilience-building with partners, showing the administration treats foreign assistance not only as altruistic aid but as a strategic instrument to defend democratic norms and global stability. The strategy’s framing clarifies why health, climate, and governance appear alongside security commitments in budget documents [1] [3].
2. The $95 billion law: what Congress funded and why it matters
Congress passed a $95 billion national security bill in 2024 that packages military and humanitarian assistance together, allocating roughly $9.15 billion for humanitarian crises and earmarking nearly $61 billion for Ukraine, plus significant sums for Israel and Indo-Pacific security assistance [2] [4]. This law blends short-term crisis relief with weapons and air-defense provisions for partners, reflecting a congressional bipartisan consensus to prioritize immediate national-security needs. The funding mix shows Congress and the White House prioritized urgent battlefield and deterrence requirements, while also preserving a defined humanitarian component [2] [4].
3. USAID and State Department funding: boost with constraints
Officials directed an injection of funds to USAID and the State Department—about $18.7 billion from the package—to support development and humanitarian operations [2]. Simultaneously, the President’s 2025 budget proposed a modest increase in foreign affairs spending—about 1%, a $64.4 billion request with $58.8 billion for State and USAID—indicating administrative intent to sustain diplomacy and development capacity despite fiscal constraints [5] [3]. The juxtaposition of one-time legislative surges and modest baseline increases underscores a dependence on emergency appropriations for large-scale foreign assistance.
4. Ukraine, Israel and Indo-Pacific: prioritized security partners
A dominant feature of 2024 aid is concentrated support for conflict and deterrence: the package assigns nearly $61 billion to Ukraine, billions to Israel for the Israel-Hamas war, and funds for Indo-Pacific security enhancements—signaling explicit aims to bolster partners’ defense and deterrence capacities [4] [6]. These allocations reflect the administration’s view of aid as a tool to maintain U.S. leadership and allied cohesion in multiple theaters. The billing demonstrates a preference for security-focused assistance when U.S. strategic interests and partner survival are directly implicated [7].
5. Humanitarian aid commitments versus long-term development trade-offs
The law’s $9.15 billion humanitarian commitment and the administration’s SDG-focused development strategy reveal a dual track: immediate relief and long-term development [1] [2]. Analysts note that while emergency funding surged, baseline development budgets saw smaller increases, suggesting possible trade-offs between urgent crisis response and sustained investments in health, climate, and governance. The administration’s approach depends on episodic congressional action for crisis-scale funding, raising questions about steadier financing for the Sustainable Development Goals and resilience programming [1] [5].
6. Budget caps, political dynamics, and implementation risks
The President’s budget acknowledges limited flexibility due to statutory caps and domestic fiscal pressures, which constrains growth in foreign affairs spending despite strategic intent [5] [3]. Congressional bargaining produced the 2024 package, but the reliance on large supplemental bills creates implementation risks: unpredictability for multiyear development programming, stretched USAID capacities, and potential domestic political backlash that could alter future appropriations. These structural constraints illustrate the tension between long-term strategy and short-term emergency funding mechanisms [5] [2].
7. Multiple narratives: defense advocates, development proponents, and political critics
Defenders of the 2024 approach stress that concentrated security assistance preserves global order and deters aggression—arguments reflected in congressional support for Ukraine and partner military aid [7] [4]. Development advocates point to the administration’s SDG-linked strategy and the USAID funding to argue for integrated resilience and human-capital investments [1] [2]. Critics warn that heavy security allocations may crowd out diplomacy and long-term development, or that episodic emergency bills substitute for steady funding—highlighting competing agendas that will shape future budgets and policy choices [4] [5].