Thinking Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right About Foreign Aid

Respecting individual rights demands that Americans are allowed to support causes they deem worthy voluntarily, not forcibly through taxation

I’m taking a brief break from my letter to the president series to comment on an issue that is near and dear to me. Look for part 3 in a couple of weeks, unless something else near and dear pops into mind; there is certainly no shortage of news to comment on. Cheers!

Recently, Elon Musk and his DOGE army has zoomed in on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), POTUS has by executive order withdrawn the country from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), and furthermore, ordered renewed scrutiny of U.S. contributions not only to UNHRC, but also the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). This has caused an uproar among those who like to appear virtuous by spending other people’s money.

I have reservations with many of the president’s actions in his first 20 days, especially his more than liberal use of executive orders in areas that clearly require legislative action by Congress (incl. USAID). But I am cautiously optimistic that the USAID and U.N. related initiatives may be a first step towards legislation that respects the individual rights of Americans to voluntarily choose what causes to support abroad, and more broadly, a discussion about the role of government in general.

With respect to USAID, the White House has pointed out that many of its projects appear to have been a complete waste of money, although some of the facts are disputed. And the UN agencies under scrutiny, especially UNHRC and UNRWA, have a long track record of hostility towards the U.S. and its ally, Israel. But the fundamental point is not whether funds have been wasted or used for causes that are against U.S. interests; it is the fact that the current system of forcing taxpayers to fund foreign aid violates individual rights.

To fully restore the respect for individual rights around foreign aid, the government will have to divest itself of all involvement. It is immoral to force Americans to support causes with their taxes whether they are sympathetic to them or not. The morally right solution is completely shutting down or privatizing USAID and completely ending government funding of the United Nations. Dollarwise, these organizations are not a huge part of the government budget—the U.N. received $18 billion (2022) and USAID $44 billion (2024)—but their demise would be of great symbolic importance, hopefully sparking legislative action to reduce the size of government in other areas.

Individual Americans are perfectly capable of determining how much value they place on the activities of both USAID and the United Nations. Today’s taxpayer funding should be replaced by voluntary, individual contributions to both USAID related initiatives and the different U.N. agencies. If you’re passionate about peace keeping, your dollars may go to the U.N. Department of Peace Keeping Operations (DPKO). If a main concern of yours is the plight of children around the world, then the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) will likely receive a share of your philanthropic budget. Or if the refugee situation in the world’s conflict zones—for example Gaza or South Sudan—is tearing your heart out, a donation to the U.N High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR - not to be confused with the aforementioned UNHRC) could provide you with peace of mind. And if efforts to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities” is at the top of your agenda, then by all means allocate your charity dollars to it.

Under this system, USAID and the different U.N. agencies would compete in the philanthropic marketplace with the multitude of other organizations that are aiding people around the world. USAID initiatives and U.N agencies that showed results would probably attract more voluntary contributions than what they receive from Congress today. Agencies that didn’t show results—and that were not able to change direction—would most likely face slow demise and eventual extinction. Americans are the most generous people in the world, but also the most result oriented; if we feel that an organization is using our hard-earned dollars efficiently, we are the first to open our wallets, but if not, we go elsewhere.

The advantages with a system of voluntary contributions are obvious:

• Competing for funds in the free marketplace with all other charitable organizations will encourage both USAID, the U.N. and other taxpayer funded foreign aid organizations to become more efficient with the donors’ funds.

• Politics will for the most part be removed from the equation; today’s tax financed foreign aid is all too often predicated on trade agreements and political favoritism.

• Fuel for U.N. conspiracy theorists will be scarcer (although admittedly, those so inclined probably move on to the next conspiracy).

But by far the most fundamental advantage is that terminating government funding—whether contributed to the U.N., dispersed through USAID, or distributed through other organizations—will strengthen the protection of and respect for the individual rights of all taxpaying Americans.

Ensuring that funds are not forcibly appropriated and distributed around the world against our convictions, instead letting each of us decide how to allocate our charitable dollars, is a small but logical part of making the larger case for thinking morally right or wrong, not politically left or right about the scope and size of government. We should welcome similar efforts in other areas of government with open arms.