On April 27,
2026, the U.S. Mission to the UN launched its Trade Over Aid initiative. At the
first of the year, the U.S. State Department put out its Agency Strategic Plan:
Fiscal Years 2026-2030, which included at the end a short section
entitled Promote and provide trade, not aid. The goal is to shift
public sector aid to private sector trade. The problem with that approach is
that people in dire need of life-saving aid do not have time to wait for the
results of that trade to trickle down to them, assuming that it even will. There
is a lot of corruption in the world that favors the affluent and
government-connected over those with the most need. That said, ‘promoting and
providing trade’ is a great idea, but “not aid” is a bad idea. The two should
not be mutually exclusive. While this doctrine is a part of the MAGA
philosophy, I think it has serious flaws. Studies have already shown that the
shutdown of USAID has led to dire circumstances for the people with the most
need, including many unnecessary deaths. That life-saving aid, however
inefficient and sometimes misplaced it was, gave the U.S. a kind of “soft
power” that allowed us to be a leader in compassionate aid around the world.
Since the Trump administration is always asserting goals of U.S. dominance –
energy dominance, technological dominance, and economic dominance in
particular, one could say that the U.S. exhibited compassionate aid dominance
or soft power dominance before USAID was dissolved.
“It emphasizes mutually beneficial trade, investment,
and private-sector engagement as the primary tools for fostering economic
growth in developing countries, rather than relying on traditional foreign aid
programs.”
The section in the State
Department’s strategy document cautions against reliance on multilateral
institutions and global non-profits for aid. I would argue that life-saving aid
is life-saving aid, wherever it originates. It matters not to a hungry person
where their food comes from, only that it comes.
That section also argues
against other forms of aid that can produce dependence, such as what has
happened with China’s aid, where what has become known as ‘debt-trap
diplomacy.’ They call that an exploitive model and seek instead to provide
nations with American technology and:
“…secure local buy-in, catalyze private capital, and
ensure that development projects benefit from the discipline of market
principle.”
That is, of course, a good
idea, and I hope it is helpful to developing countries. However, it does not
address the immediate needs of real people at all.
In ‘Remarks by Under
Secretary William Kimmitt at the Trade Over Aid Launch Event', the
undersecretary reiterated the themes of dependency, mutual exclusivity of aid
and trade, and private-sector problem solving.
“Aid can serve a purpose, but no nation ever became
prosperous because it was permanently dependent on aid. Nations become
prosperous when they produce, trade, build, invest, innovate, and compete.
That’s the foundation of this initiative.”
I can’t see anyone believing
that aid alone could make a country prosperous.
“Too many of our trading partners have distorted global
markets through subsidies, state direction, forced technology transfer, weak
regulatory enforcement, non-market behavior, and other practices that prevent
true free, fair, and reciprocal trade.”
Sure, some of those issues
can be adjusted in the countries’ favor. He goes on to say basically that
developing countries should develop, including developing effective free
markets that do not distort the wider global market, urging them to:
“…build more productive industries, attract investment,
and rise through fair competition.”
The heart of the matter is
commerce for mutual benefit. This is due in part to the America First strategy,
which always asks: How do Americans and American companies and institutions
benefit? In other words, what’s in it for us? That is fine for economic
development, but not for life-saving aid.
“When developing economies become more prosperous, they
become better customers, better investors, better partners, and better allies.
This is how shared prosperity is created—not through dependency, but through
production and exchange.”
That is fine and dandy and a
good idea. It is pure Trumpism, where everything is transactional, but it does
not apply to dire need, which seems to be the elephant in the room that is not
being addressed.
The summary below is very
good, and I agree with it, but again, I don’t think that giving life-saving aid
was meant or expected to improve the economies of developing countries. I think
that a better overall approach would have been ‘More trade, less aid.’
References:
Trade
Over Aid. U.S. Mission to the United Nations. April 27, 2026. Trade Over Aid - United
States Mission to the United Nations
Agency
Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2026-2030. U.S. DEPARTMENT of STATE. January 2026. Agency
Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2026-2030
Remarks
by Under Secretary William Kimmitt at the Trade Over Aid Launch Event. April
27, 2026. Remarks
by Under Secretary William Kimmitt at the Trade Over Aid Launch Event






















