WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s restrictions on foreign aid and decisions affecting key international funding agencies are raising concerns about a potential power shift to China, America’s leading global rival.
The administration’s “America First” policy, which includes the disbanding of the U.S. Agency for International Development and withdrawal from international organizations, has prompted lawmakers and experts to question whether the U.S. is relinquishing its worldwide influence, especially as anxiety grows around China’s expanding reach.
Foreign assistance has traditionally served as a vital source of “soft power” for the U.S., enabling it to forge alliances and counter adversarial forces, thereby enhancing national security without resorting to military intervention.
The stark contrast is evident in Cambodia, where China has allocated $4.4 million for demining efforts, while the Trump administration has halted a similar $6.3 million grant intended to clear U.S.-origin unexploded ordinance.
Administration officials assert that it is crucial to reassess how the U.S. allocates its foreign aid budget.
In response to whether the U.S. is inadvertently empowering China and Russia in the global arena, national security adviser Mike Waltz recently emphasized that many overseas missions and programs fail to align with strategic U.S. interests, particularly in addressing challenges posed by China.
The Trump administration successfully urged Panama to withdraw from China’s Belt and Road Initiative, drawing sharp criticism from Beijing.
Disagreement persists among experts and lawmakers regarding the implications of the U.S. retreat from foreign aid. Legal challenges to the aid freeze and restrictions on the U.S. Agency for International Development could impact these policies.
Feng Zhang, a visiting scholar at a prominent law school, warned that a second Trump administration could inadvertently empower China’s ambitions for greater global influence.
Democratic Senator Andy Kim expressed similar concerns, noting that the current U.S. strategy might eliminate the need for China to compete for influence worldwide.
Meanwhile, Republican Representative John Moolenaar, who leads the House Select Committee on China, suggested reassessing foreign assistance strategies to better promote American interests and values.
Dennis Wilder, a senior fellow at a Washington-based think tank, argued that the U.S. holds significant global sway beyond foreign aid, given its military power and financial dominance.
He cautioned against assuming that China can readily fill any vacuum created by a U.S. withdrawal.
China’s embassy in Washington expressed its readiness to collaborate with global partners, including the U.S., to foster development and mutual prosperity.
While both nations aim to exert influence through foreign assistance, their approaches differ significantly. China primarily provides funding as loans for infrastructure projects, while U.S. aid has historically focused on grants and humanitarian initiatives.
In Peru, for example, Chinese investments have facilitated the construction of a significant megaport, while U.S. aid has supported agricultural alternatives to drug production. American funding has also played a vital role in combatting diseases in Africa and providing essential services in crisis regions.
Recognizing the need for tangible infrastructure investments, Congress established initiatives in 2018 to combine government funding with private investments for key projects.
Between 2000 and 2021, China committed $1.34 trillion to nearly 18,000 overseas projects, while the U.S. disbursed $1.24 trillion in foreign aid, including military assistance, from 2001 to 2023.
USAID, the largest U.S. government entity for international aid, disbursed $43.8 billion in 2023, a fraction of overall federal spending.
Experts caution that differences in project funding may prevent China from fully capitalizing on the U.S. retreat. However, the perception of diminished U.S. reliability as a partner could bolster Beijing’s narrative as a responsible global leader, fostering doubts about American commitments.
Organizations reliant on U.S. funding, like those monitoring labor practices, are already feeling the strain from aid reductions, leading to layoffs and operational challenges.
China is positioned to fill the void left by the U.S., particularly for nations seeking investments without stringent political requirements, according to international relations scholars.
Overall, the shift in U.S. foreign aid strategy may indicate a move towards a more militarized form of diplomacy, sidelining soft power in favor of coercive tactics.
