Belief: We should end foreign aid to countries that oppose America's interests.

Reasons to agree:

1. Government spending should be limited to essential programs

   • The U.S. government should eliminate all non-essential spending.

   • Test for necessity: "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?"

   • If a program is not essential to national security or economic prosperity, it should be cut.

2. The U.S. has valid national interests

   • America competes for resources, alliances, and global influence against regimes that oppose human rights and democracy.

   • Supporting adversarial nations undermines U.S. values and strategic interests.

   • Aid should align with American ideals, rewarding good behavior and discouraging bad behavior.

3. The U.S. cannot afford unnecessary foreign aid

   • The U.S. is trillions of dollars in debt, making it irresponsible to fund nations that do not support American goals.

   • Prioritizing domestic economic stability is more important than financing adversaries.

4. Aid to hostile nations strengthens opposition to the U.S.

   • North Korea, for example, sells nuclear technology to U.S. enemies.

   • Foreign aid to adversarial governments prevents reform, enriches corrupt elites, and enables regimes to continue their opposition.

5. Foreign aid often benefits the wrong people

   • Aid frequently transfers money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.

   • Corrupt leaders misuse funds rather than addressing poverty and economic development.

---

Reasons to disagree:

1. Foreign aid is a tool for influence and leverage

   • Cutting aid could reduce U.S. diplomatic influence, leaving a vacuum for adversaries like China and Russia to fill.

   • Aid can be used strategically to encourage reforms and cooperation from adversarial governments.

2. Humanitarian aid should not be dictated by politics

   • Millions depend on U.S. foreign aid for disaster relief, medical care, and food assistance.

   • Cutting aid may harm innocent civilians rather than corrupt leaders.

3. Not all opposition is permanent

   • Countries that currently oppose U.S. interests may change through diplomatic engagement and strategic incentives.

   • Foreign aid can be an effective tool for encouraging democratic reforms and improving relations.

4. Economic aid can reduce long-term security threats

   • Poverty and instability fuel terrorism and conflict, which can ultimately threaten the U.S.

   • Supporting struggling nations can promote stability and prevent adversarial regimes from gaining further influence.

---

Interest/Motivation of those who agree:

✔️ Advocates for fiscal responsibility and reduced government spending.
✔️ National security experts who oppose financing adversarial regimes.
✔️ Conservative policy reformers advocating for America-first foreign policy.
✔️ Those who believe in prioritizing domestic needs over international spending.

Interest/Motivation of those who disagree:

✔️ Diplomats who see foreign aid as a key tool of international influence.
✔️ Humanitarian organizations focused on global poverty and crisis relief.
✔️ Advocates for international stability, arguing aid prevents larger security threats.
✔️ Economic strategists who believe foreign aid investments yield long-term benefits for U.S. interests.

---

Shared Interests Between Those Who Agree and Disagree:

✔️ Commitment to U.S. global leadership and influence.
✔️ Protection of national security and economic stability.
✔️ Interest in effective and strategic use of resources.
✔️ Desire to promote peace, stability, and American interests abroad.

---

Evidence Scores:

📌 Studies showing high levels of corruption in aid-receiving nations.
📌 Reports on foreign aid misuse by adversarial governments.
📌 Analyses showing that China and Russia increase influence when U.S. aid is withdrawn.

---

Most Likely Benefits:

✔️ More responsible government spending and reduced national debt.
✔️ Stronger diplomatic alignment, prioritizing aid to U.S. allies.
✔️ Less financial support for hostile regimes.
✔️ Better use of resources for domestic programs and military strength.

---

Books that agree:

📖 The Tragedy of American Foreign Aid – William Easterly (critiquing the inefficacy of foreign aid)
📖 The Case for America First – Douglas Macgregor (arguing for a more self-reliant foreign policy)
📖 Foreign Aid and the Curse of Dependency – Dambisa Moyo (exploring how aid harms developing nations)

Books that disagree:

📖 The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War – Benn Steil (showing the historical success of strategic aid)
📖 Give People Money – Annie Lowrey (advocating for foreign aid as a development tool)
📖 The End of Poverty – Jeffrey Sachs (arguing that targeted aid can eliminate global poverty)

---

Videos that agree:

🎥 Heritage Foundation on foreign aid inefficiency.
🎥 AEI panel on strategic aid reductions.

Videos that disagree:

🎥 Brookings Institution on why aid remains essential.
🎥 CFR discussion on balancing aid with security interests.

---

Conclusion:

✔️ U.S. foreign aid should prioritize national interests, cutting off support to regimes that actively oppose America.
✔️ However, some argue that aid is a strategic tool for long-term stability and global influence.
✔️ A balanced approach may involve redirecting aid to allies and humanitarian causes, ensuring taxpayer money aligns with national priorities.
✔️ As international competition increases, the U.S. must decide whether foreign aid is a liability or an asset in securing its global position.

Alternative Related Beliefs:

1. Foreign aid should be primarily humanitarian, not political. This view argues that the core purpose of aid should be to alleviate suffering and promote human well-being, regardless of a recipient government's political alignment with the U.S. Humanitarian crises and basic human needs should be the primary drivers of aid allocation.

2. Foreign aid should be strictly transactional, directly linked to U.S. benefits. This perspective advocates for a quid pro quo approach, where aid is only given in direct exchange for specific actions or concessions that demonstrably benefit U.S. interests, such as trade agreements, military cooperation, or political support.

3. Foreign aid should be channeled through multilateral organizations, not bilateral U.S. programs. Proponents of this belief argue that multilateral aid is more effective, less politically motivated, and avoids the perception of neocolonialism. International organizations like the UN or World Bank are seen as more neutral and efficient conduits for aid.

4. Foreign aid should focus on promoting democracy and human rights globally. This belief prioritizes aid to countries committed to democratic values and human rights, and may even advocate for withholding aid from autocratic regimes, regardless of whether they directly oppose U.S. interests. The goal is to advance a global order based on liberal democratic principles.

5. Foreign aid should be replaced by promoting private investment and free trade. This perspective argues that government-to-government aid is inherently inefficient and distorting. Instead, the U.S. should focus on fostering free markets, encouraging private investment, and promoting trade relationships as the most effective long-term drivers of development and poverty reduction.

6. Foreign aid allocation should be based on a weighted multi-factor analysis, prioritizing factors with the strongest supporting arguments. This approach would involve:

   • Identifying key factors relevant to U.S. interests and effective aid, such as:
     • Likelihood of strengthening American national security.
     • Potential to promote peace and regional stability.
     • Prospects for fostering free trade and mutually beneficial economic partnerships.
     • Opportunity to advance human rights and democratic values.
     • Urgency of humanitarian needs and potential for effective aid delivery.
   • Evaluating the strength of arguments for and against each factor, using criteria like:
     • Linkage to desired outcomes.
     • Factual accuracy and verification.
     • Logical validity and coherence.
     • Evidence from relevant studies and historical examples.
   • Weighting each factor based on the assessed strength of its supporting arguments.
   • Allocating aid based on a composite score derived from the weighted factors, ensuring resources are directed to where they can have the most positive and well-justified impact on U.S. interests and global well-being.