U.S. foreign aid spending fell from $68 billion in 2024 to approximately $32 billion in 2025, according to official data from foreignassistance.gov, a decline of more than 50%. This followed a January 2025 executive order freezing foreign assistance for a 90-day review, after which the administration moved to terminate roughly 83% of USAID's approximately 6,300 global programs. USAID, which had employed a global workforce of about 10,000 people at the start of 2025, was officially closed on July 1, 2025, with its remaining functions absorbed into the State Department.
The OECD's April 2026 preliminary data found that U.S. cuts alone drove roughly three-quarters of the largest single-year decline in global aid ever recorded across all donor countries combined, with total OECD donor assistance falling from $214.6 billion in 2024 to $174.3 billion in 2025.
The administration's FY2026 budget request proposed just $31.5 billion for international programs, an additional cut from the already-reduced 2025 level, and separately sought to rescind roughly $20 billion in previously appropriated but unspent funding. Congress rejected that approach: the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, passed with bipartisan support and signed into law February 3, 2026, allocated $50 billion for foreign aid and diplomacy, still a 16% cut from 2025 levels, but nearly 60% more than the administration had requested.
This is a genuinely notable instance of Congress asserting its own budgetary priorities against the executive branch's preferred, deeper cuts, restoring some funding for specific programs including global health ($9.4 billion), humanitarian aid ($5.5 billion), and food assistance, while leaving the underlying dismantling of USAID itself unaddressed, since those functions had already been legally transferred to the State Department and USDA.
One specific research model, ImpactCounter, built specifically to track mortality impact from the funding cuts, estimated that more than 762,000 people had died as a direct consequence by January 2026, including over 500,000 children, with disrupted PEPFAR services cited as the most significant single driver. This is a modeled estimate from one specific research effort, not a directly measured, universally agreed-upon count, and should be understood as one data point reflecting a particular methodology rather than a definitively settled figure, though it's frequently cited alongside more narrowly documented, verifiable examples like the DRC cholera death increase.
Supporters of the cuts generally argue U.S. foreign aid spending had grown into an inefficient, poorly overseen system, and that an "America First" reallocation of resources toward domestic priorities and more targeted, accountable foreign assistance is a legitimate policy choice for an elected administration to pursue. Critics generally point to documented, verifiable consequences like the DRC cholera spike and disrupted HIV treatment access as evidence the cuts caused immediate, serious harm that outpaced any efficiency gains, and note that Congress's own bipartisan decision to restore significant funding above the administration's request suggests even many Republican lawmakers viewed the deepest proposed cuts as going too far. Both sides broadly agree 2025 marked the most significant single-year restructuring of U.S. foreign aid policy since the Marshall Plan era, the genuine disagreement is over whether that restructuring was a necessary correction or a self-inflicted humanitarian and diplomatic setback.
Want the core arguments from both sides, side by side?
See the Left vs. Right Breakdown on Foreign Aid Spending →