Bipartisan Support for Foreign Aid Persists Despite Misconceptions on Spending

Bipartisan Support for Foreign Aid Persists

In a recent comprehensive survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, an astounding 89% of Americans believe the U.S. government should allocate at least 1% of the federal budget on foreign aid. This figure aligns with the current spending level on aid, indicating a strong consensus across party lines: 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats are in agreement. This significant finding highlights how foreign aid remains an area of bipartisan support even amidst ongoing political polarization.

The survey, carried out from February 6 to February 7, 2025, involved a representative sample of 1,160 American adults and revealed that a substantial number of respondents are generally unaware of the actual financial commitment the U.S. makes towards foreign aid. Many participants estimated that at least 20% of the federal budget is spent on foreign assistance, a gross overestimation that reflects a common misunderstanding of budget allocation.

When asked about ideal percentages, the majority of respondents felt that the federal budget should dedicate at least 10% to foreign aid. Interestingly, the specific views diverge along partisan lines, with Republicans leaning towards 5% and Democrats and independents favoring 10%. Steven Kull, the director of the Program for Public Consultation, explained that these misconceptions about foreign aid spending lead to support for budget cuts that may not reflect the actual allocation.

In-depth analysis of the survey results revealed strong preferences for maintaining or increasing funding across various foreign assistance programs. Respondents expressed a desire to sustain or enhance budgets for humanitarian relief (56%), economic development (56%), global health (64%), education (67%), environmental efforts (65%), and democracy and human rights initiatives (60%). Notably, only 8-14% of survey participants supported the elimination of any of these programs. While some Republicans showed a tendency to cut specific programs, only a small fraction advocated for substantial reductions or eliminations.

The survey formally evaluated arguments for and against continuing U.S. foreign aid. Notably, a compelling argument asserting that aid “saves lives, alleviates suffering and hunger,” which helps communities recover, resonated with 78% of the respondents—a viewpoint shared by 73% of Republicans and a strong 87% of Democrats. Conversely, arguments highlighting domestic issues and concerns about waste and corruption were equally convincing for about three-quarters of the participants; however, over 70% found counterarguments, which indicate that allegations of widespread waste and fraud in foreign aid are often exaggerated, also compelling.

Evan Charles Lewitus, a Senior Research Analyst at PPC, described the general support for foreign aid as deeply rooted in moral considerations and the belief in its effectiveness in serving American interests. He noted that while concerns about mismanagement exist, Americans seemingly prefer to address these issues rather than drastically reduce funding.

Opinions on how foreign aid should be distributed were also addressed. When asked whether funds should be directed more through bilateral channels or through multilateral bodies like the UN, opinions varied. A slight majority of 39% preferred maintaining the current balance of bilateral aid, while a third expressed a desire for a more bilateral approach, and 26% supported increasing multilateral support. The current distribution method, which sees about two-thirds of aid allocated bilaterally, continues to be a topic of interest among policymakers and the public alike.

Interestingly, Americans often incorrectly gauge how much the U.S. spends on foreign aid when compared to other developed nations, with over 60% believing that the U.S. aid spending is higher than the average. In fact, U.S. foreign aid spending, as a percentage of its economy, is lower than that of many other developed nations. This disparity underscores the necessity for continued public education on international aid, budgets, and their implications for both domestic and foreign policy.

These findings are critical not only for understanding the American public's perception of foreign aid but also for shaping future policies and initiatives. The survey indicates an opportunity for advocacy and reform in how foreign aid is presented to the public, emphasizing the success and necessity of such programs while publicly addressing the concerns related to budgeting and efficiency. The full survey results and methodology can provide further insight into how Americans view foreign aid and its role in global governance.

This survey continues to establish the vital role of public consultation in governance, bringing representative citizen opinions into discussions about the future of U.S. foreign policy; it is essential for ensuring that American foreign aid aligns with both national awareness and international humanitarian needs.