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.
Did Obama or Biden use tax dollars to fund other countries leaders
Executive summary
Claims that Presidents Barack Obama or Joe Biden “used tax dollars to fund other countries’ leaders” require care: U.S. foreign aid is publicly appropriated and often goes to governments, international organizations, NGOs and projects that can include support for governance, elections, or capacity-building — not direct payments to foreign heads of state — and the federal foreign‑assistance budget was about $99.9 billion in FY2023 and on track to be roughly $58.4 billion for FY2025 per government data and analyses [1] [2]. Available sources do not show a simple, sustained program of “paying foreign leaders personal stipends” by either Obama or Biden; instead reporting focuses on appropriated aid programs, congressional oversight, and partisan disputes about which organizations and projects receive funding [3] [1] [4].
1. What U.S. foreign aid is and how it’s allocated
The U.S. government publishes foreign‑assistance data on ForeignAssistance.gov and the Congressional Research Service explains that U.S. foreign assistance comprises many instruments — bilateral grants and loans, humanitarian aid, security assistance and support through multilateral bodies — subject to annual appropriations and congressional direction, not unilateral “taxpayer slush funds” at the president’s whim [3] [1].
2. Does aid ever flow to foreign governments or officials?
Yes: a substantial portion of U.S. aid is designed to support foreign governments’ budgets, capacity, or elections — for example, programs to strengthen governance or support democratic processes — but CRS and government data frame this as programmatic assistance overseen by agencies and Congress rather than direct payments to individual leaders’ private accounts [1] [3].
3. The accusation often conflates programs, contractors and partners
Critics cite grants routed through international NGOs or U.S. contractors and highlight specific line items (cited in partisan hearings or committee reports) to argue ideological capture; House hearings and oversight pieces have accused agencies of funding projects tied to progressive causes or organizations, while defenders say those projects represent a small share of large, congressionally‑directed budgets [5] [4] [6].
4. Examples from recent years: scale and oversight
CRS reports that the U.S. obligated an estimated $99.9 billion in foreign assistance in FY2023 and that the Biden administration set priorities like climate and anti‑authoritarian programs beginning in 2021; these are budgetary priorities enacted via Congress and tracked publicly [1]. Pew noted projected international assistance at about $58.4 billion for FY2025 and pointed to ForeignAssistance.gov as the main public data source [2] [3].
5. Where partisan claims come from — hearings and selective examples
House Republican hearings and oversight releases have highlighted small grants — for instance, alleged funding for cultural projects abroad — to argue misuse of USAID under Biden; those hearings frame such items as emblematic of a broader political agenda, while other reporting and analysts note those items are a tiny fraction of overall aid and that congressional earmarks or oversight often preceded them [6] [4].
6. What reporting does not support (and limitations of available sources)
Available sources do not document a program in which Obama or Biden personally authorized cash payments to foreign leaders’ private accounts. They instead show large, complex aid budgets, agency programs, and disputes over priorities and partners. If you are asking about a specific allegation (a named leader, date, or dollar amount), available sources do not mention that specific claim; I cannot confirm it from the material provided [3] [1].
7. Two competing interpretations you should weigh
One interpretation — advanced by congressional critics and some conservative commentators — is that USAID and Biden‑era priorities funneled taxpayer dollars into ideologically driven projects or activist groups abroad [6]. The competing interpretation — reflected by aid experts and defenders of the Biden approach — is that aid increased to meet humanitarian crises, that many funds were congressionally earmarked, and that USAID sought to localize funding to partners rather than funnel money to partisan interests [4] [1].
8. How to verify particular claims going forward
Check ForeignAssistance.gov for line‑item data, read the CRS summary of U.S. foreign assistance for context on authorities and flows, and consult reporting that ties specific grants to named projects or contracts; where hearings or partisan documents allege misuse, follow whether independent audits or Inspector General reports substantiate those claims [3] [1] [5].
Summary judgment: U.S. presidents operate within a statutory, congressional appropriation system for foreign aid (documented public budgets and portals), and the sources provided describe partisan disputes over priorities and partners but do not substantiate a straightforward claim that Obama or Biden paid other countries’ leaders personally with U.S. tax dollars [3] [1] [4].