Community members meet to discuss implementation of United State's Agency for International Development's Food for Peace program in Morrumbala, Mozambique.
Peacebuilding Cannot be a Casualty of Foreign Aid Cuts
Since assuming office, the Trump administration has overseen the defunding and dismantling of the government’s international aid agencies under its America First foreign policy. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has backed these cuts, stating that all aid must keep America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. The proposed cuts reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the significantly higher costs imposed by reactive rather than proactive policies. America First foreign policy will never deliver on its tripartite promise if foreign aid cuts to peacebuilding programs are codified.
In fragile states, the U.S. has historically employed a mixture of preventative projects aimed at boosting economic growth, internal stability, and state capacity alongside reactive programming largely consisting of foreign assistance. While both play important roles, peacebuilding is the far more cost-effective option, saving American taxpayers $16 in “response costs” for every $1 invested.
Despite this, the administration has shuttered agencies carrying out vital peacebuilding programming, which President Trump claims are “antithetical to American values” and “destabilize world peace.” The evidence for such claims isn’t apparent, but the administration’s desire to act on it is. The so-called “skinny budget” for Fiscal Year 2026 proposes cutting the allotment of the U.S. Department of State from $58.7B to $9.6B—the lowest point in more than 80 years.
So, what are the effects of peacebuilding cuts on American safety, strength, and prosperity?
First, the U.S. is removing an effective and economical mechanism of external security control, leaving America vulnerable to myriad threats. The Trump administration plans to completely defund food assistance programs that directly reduce illegal migration from Latin America and source products from U.S. farmers, injecting money back into the economy. Similarly, the administration plans to axe around $6B in global health programs that eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases, ignoring the transnational nature of diseases despite recent outbreaks of measles and COVID-19.
The removal of more than $4B in conflict prevention and security assistance will also exacerbate current instability and weaken future conflict management efforts in fragile states. The funding cuts are highly detrimental to UN peacekeeping activities—around 25 percent of the yearly budget comes from the U.S.—which provide a cost-effective approach to reducing violence without risking American personnel. Following a 2004 coup in Haiti, a U.S.-proposed UN stabilization mission successfully halted the violence and saved $760M in the first fourteen months alone. The U.S.’s reluctance to fund a new UN mission following the recent resurgence of gang violence in Haiti, however, has limited personnel deployment, allowing criminal networks and drug traffickers to flourish. This has prompted hundreds of thousands of migrants to flee to the U.S. and Haiti’s neighbors, inflaming social and political tensions that threaten to destabilize the Caribbean.
Second, coercive and isolationist U.S. policies weaken America’s role internationally, facilitating the ascendance of U.S. adversaries. Already, China has weaponized the abrasive and protectionist nature of Washington’s recent policies to court countries in Latin America. Colombia recently joined the Belt and Road Initiative and received an offer of $10B in development, education, and security assistance from China—areas from which the U.S. plans to cut billions. Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro clarified that Colombia would “be won by whoever makes the best offer during the bidding process,” and for now, it seems that China’s offer has won out. Alternatives to the U.S. exist, and it is better to attract than coerce.
Lastly, peacebuilding cuts will limit America’s future economic prosperity. For example, the continued insurgency by Islamic militants in northeastern Mozambique has delayed Exxon Mobil’s final investment decision on a $30B liquefied natural gas project that the company originally leased back in 2017. The Biden administration launched a series of programs between 2023 and 2024 to encourage community reconciliation, boost agricultural productivity, and improve infrastructure, but these initiatives have since been hamstrung by foreign aid cancellations. Mozambique already lacked the capacity to address these issues alone, and the U.S.’s withdrawal will likely shutter energy and agribusiness investments for at least the next decade.
No one wants their tax dollars wasted by the government, whether it’s the Pentagon or an aid agency. However, peacebuilding is far from a waste—it’s a necessary investment in American prosperity in a global market. The threats to U.S. national security and economic interests will worsen and proliferate in the case of American absenteeism on the global stage, and preventative rather than reactive policies remain the most practical and cost-effective pursuit. If the Trump administration cares about making America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, it should champion peacebuilding instead of crippling it.
Photo Credit: USAID
