Trade Over Aid: It’s Fine, but Trade Can’t Treat Dire and Immediate Issues Like Aid Can

     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