America's Aid Becomes a Bargaining Chip Under Trump

Days before the Dalai Lama's 90th birthday party last summer, the US State Department suddenly allocated nearly $7 million to support Tibetan exiles. Just months earlier, the same administration had canceled $12 million in annual aid to Tibetan communities as part of USAID's collapse.

The timing wasn't coincidental. State Department officials wanted to "give some good news ahead of the trip," according to internal emails. But this last-minute funding restoration signals something far more significant: American foreign aid has fundamentally changed from a humanitarian mission into a transactional tool.

From Helping Hands to Bargaining Chips

For 50 years, US foreign aid followed a straightforward principle codified by both Democrats and Republicans: send resources where they're needed most. Under Trump's second administration, that's been replaced by what the Center for Strategic and International Studies calls "dealmaking and transactions as near-exclusive metrics of success."

Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, established a new litmus test: programs must make America "safer, stronger, and more prosperous." Internal State Department talking points, obtained by The Atlantic, make it clear that aid is now "not global charity" but rather "a tool of strategic engagement."

The result? Instead of targeting where they can save the most lives, US humanitarian efforts now aim primarily at advancing Trump administration priorities.

Trading Minerals for Malaria Drugs

The most explicit examples come from Africa. Zambia's government had to agree to "collaboration in the mining sector" to receive funding for malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV treatment. Equatorial Guinea accepted US deportees who aren't even its citizens in exchange for $7.5 million from a refugee assistance fund.

The State Department isn't hiding this strategy. A September memo to Congress explicitly states the intention to use foreign assistance to incentivize nations to "support US immigration priorities" and diversify "critical mineral supply chains."

This represents a dramatic shift from previous administrations that generally distinguished between a country's government and its people when making aid decisions. The US once led efforts to reduce humanitarian crises in Iraq despite sanctions against Saddam Hussein, and even fed North Korea during its late-1990s famine.

Allies Get Rewards, Adversaries Get Cut Off

The new approach creates clear winners and losers. Kenya received $1.7 billion for its health system after leading UN peacekeeping efforts in Haiti—a country the Trump administration wants stabilized to prevent migration to Florida. Jordan, America's main Arab ally known for CIA collaboration, appears to be the only country where water infrastructure projects have been reinstated, despite the US abandoning more than 20 half-finished drinking water systems worldwide.

Meanwhile, all assistance to Afghanistan and Yemen has been shut down, despite federal famine data showing urgent intervention is needed to prevent malnutrition deaths. Myanmar's request for earthquake relief was met with a muted response because "they have a military junta that doesn't like us."

When 'America First' Becomes 'Trump First'

Sometimes the administration's vision seems less "America First" and more "Trump First." In March, Vietnam announced that a suspended USAID project to clean up toxic chemicals would resume—one day after Vietnam's prime minister met with a Trump Organization representative. Soon after, Vietnamese officials argued the organization should skip legal requirements to build a new golf resort on an expedited timeline to "capitalize on the support of the Donald Trump administration."

The Strategic Gamble

This transactional approach may gain short-term resources for the US, but it risks sacrificing other goals. The American intelligence community has long known that insurgent groups rely on desperation and food insecurity to recruit. After US-funded programs in Mozambique were cut, ISIS surged into the vacuum. When aid to Afghanistan was hastily shut down, 147 pieces of sensitive security equipment ended up in Taliban hands.

The Trump administration's approach brings America in line with authoritarian countries that have historically prioritized strategy over charity. Russia's grain diplomacy operates on the understanding that food today means military bases tomorrow. China subordinates health outcomes to establishing dependency on its medical technology.