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.
What are the primary recipients of US foreign aid under the Biden administration?
Executive Summary
The data through 2024–2025 show that Ukraine, Israel, and several crisis-affected countries in Africa and the Middle East were the largest individual recipients of U.S. foreign assistance in the Biden administration’s most recent full fiscal-year reporting (FY2023–2024), with Ukraine the single largest recipient by far in 2023. Aggregate U.S. ODA also remained heavily concentrated on Africa, global health, humanitarian response, and a handful of strategic partners; reporting and analysis note shifts tied to the Russia–Ukraine war and humanitarian crises [1] [2].
1. Why Ukraine towers over other recipients — the numbers and context that matter
In fiscal 2023, Ukraine received roughly $16.6–$17 billion, making it the single biggest recipient of U.S. foreign-assistance flows that year; the figure outstrips the next largest individual recipients by a wide margin and exceeded aid to the bottom 159 aid-recipient countries combined in some datasets. This concentration reflects U.S. policy choices to provide extensive economic, security, and humanitarian support in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion, and it explains much of the year‑to‑year volatility in U.S. assistance totals. Reporting emphasizes that the Ukraine package profoundly reshaped FY2023 spending patterns, pushing total U.S. foreign-assistance outlays to levels not seen since the mid‑20th century even as other priorities continued [1] [3] [4].
2. Israel, Middle East partners, and longstanding strategic ties
Israel appears consistently among the top bilateral recipients, receiving several billion dollars in military and security-related assistance in FY2023. Jordan and Egypt also rank highly, reflecting long-standing U.S. security, diplomatic, and development partnerships. These flows are part of a durable U.S. pattern of directing significant aid to key strategic partners in the Middle East for regional stability, counterterrorism, and bilateral security cooperation. Analysts note that while some funds are steady, the composition — military versus economic or humanitarian — varies with congressional appropriations and regional crises [1] [3] [2].
3. Africa’s large share — broad, diffuse, and focused on development and humanitarian needs
Across the Biden-era reports, sub‑Saharan Africa receives between a quarter and a third of U.S. bilateral ODA, and in aggregate the continent received roughly $15.7 billion in 2023 according to development cooperation profiles. That aid is spread across many countries for health, governance, food security, and humanitarian response — for example, Ethiopia and other crisis-hit states figure among top recipients when emergencies surge. The U.S. approach combines development programs with substantial humanitarian assistance in conflict and famine-prone areas, so Africa’s share reflects both long-term development priorities and emergency spending [5] [2].
4. Humanitarian hot spots and the role of crisis-driven allocations
Beyond Ukraine and traditional strategic partners, several countries experiencing conflict or disaster — including Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and South Sudan — received large humanitarian packages. These flows are episodic: spikes in humanitarian aid follow crises, and that episodic nature makes year-to-year ranking of “primary recipients” sensitive to timing. Multiple sources underscore that while U.S. bilateral ODA remains concentrated in a handful of countries, a broad universe of recipients (over 170 countries) receives some assistance, with median country packages far smaller than the top recipients’ sums [5] [1] [2].
5. How reporting, politics, and agency responsibilities shape recipient lists
Differences across datasets reflect methodology and timing: ForeignAssistance.gov, OECD profiles, and journalistic summaries each classify flows differently (economic aid, humanitarian, military security assistance, budget support). USAID, State, and Defense execute aid differently, producing variation in headline totals and recipient rankings. Political decisions — emergency supplemental packages for Ukraine, congressional appropriations for security partners, or proposed aid freezes — produce rapid shifts in who appears as a “primary” recipient, so recipient lists are as much a snapshot of political choices as of development priorities [6] [1].
6. What’s missing from headlines — agendas, timing, and the need for up-to-date dashboards
Analysts caution that headlines naming “top recipients” can obscure that most aid dollars are concentrated in a few crises or partners while many countries receive modest support; they also warn that political maneuvers (freezes, cuts, or reallocation proposals) can change the picture quickly. To follow current recipients, the interactive ForeignAssistance.gov dashboard and OECD development profiles provide granular, frequently updated breakdowns; users should consult those dashboards for real‑time allocation details and to distinguish economic, humanitarian, and military assistance lines. Given the data’s sensitivity to timing, the most accurate claim is that Ukraine dominated FY2023 aid while Africa and longstanding partners collectively absorbed large shares of U.S. ODA [6] [2] [4].