浪花直播

A small order with big implications was included in President Trump鈥檚 flurry of first-day actions: 鈥攖he decision to until further review. The move reflects the lack of appetite in the United States for spending money abroad, a fact laid bare by last year鈥檚 to Ukraine. More broadly, President Trump鈥檚 order is consistent with the previous two administrations鈥� reliance on domestic policies, including trade protection, to achieve America鈥檚 economic goals. 

Yet development assistance remains one of America鈥檚 most powerful economic and security tools. The US spends more than on projects ranging from sanitation to healthcare to critical infrastructure. Rather than doing less, the US would benefit from doing much more. 

With the Trump administration considering its core , there鈥檚 an opportunity to enhance development programs in ways that make good strategic sense for the US and its partners. Here are three ways the new administration can improve its development policy for greater security at home and abroad. 

First, the US needs closer coordination among its development, commercial, and foreign policy agencies. 

Many of America鈥檚 closest allies have already streamlined policymaking for more effective lending overseas. In 2013, and each merged their aid agencies with their trade and foreign affairs departments. The United Kingdom in 2020. 

The core motivation was the realization that a 鈥渨hole of government approach鈥濃�攐ften discussed in the US but rarely implemented鈥攚as the best way to coordinate each country鈥檚 economic and security goals. A 2017 summary of Australia鈥檚 states the benefits plainly, noting that funding development abroad 鈥渁lso serves [Australia鈥檚] interests because the more that countries can provide economic opportunity for their citizens, the more stable they will be.鈥� 

By contrast, the US languishes behind with separate agencies and departments for foreign policy, development, and trade all linked together by for planning and coordination. Short of folding these agencies into one department, there should be careful review of administrative processes and bureaucracy to to strategic partners overseas. 

Second, development finance can play a more central role in boosting America鈥檚 trade interests鈥攏ot least, securing critical minerals and energy sources. 

The previous two administrations rolled back America鈥檚 commitment to free trade, putting new trade deals on hold in favor of 鈥渇ramework agreements,鈥� while at the same time the highest industrial tariffs in decades. 

Yet the US simply doesn鈥檛 have the , the , or the to produce everything it needs. Foreign partnerships are necessary to keep America鈥檚 economy running at home, as well as to build security abroad. Partners overseas have the resources and the capacity that America needs, yet they must also be incentivized to work with the US for more secure supply chains. 

Development assistance should be a tool the US deploys (in part) to secure its economic security through trade-enabling investments abroad. At a minimum, the new administration must encourage Congress to the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the (AGOA), and other assistance programs that strengthen our vital foreign partnerships.

Third, and most simply, development finance can promote US exports. 

When America invests strategically overseas, it sees a return on that investment鈥攖o the tune of $231 for every dollar spent abroad. Realizing these benefits is more crucial than ever. 

Take the engineering industry for example. US firms account for an estimated 13% of total international contracting revenue, while Chinese firms contribute about 35% and European firms represent around 40%. This means that Chinese and European firms are designing and building  far more infrastructure than their US counterparts. While doing so, they are forging key governmental and commercial relationships that generate export revenue and support supply chain resilience. 

While the US government is already the world鈥檚 largest donor of , more must be done to encourage US firms to participate in development assistance abroad. Initiatives such as the Biden administration鈥檚 Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment (PGI) and the work of agencies such as the (USTDA) are platforms on which to build. Yet they do not invest nearly enough to boost US private sector participation in developing markets. The US Government must do more to incentivize US firms to participate in projects in the developing world through its development assistance while ensuring the benefits of this investment support local businesses and communities. 

The next four years in the US and around the globe will be highly volatile. There are increasing challenges, such as climate change, inequality, and geopolitical instability. But with trade policy in flux, the US can turn to development policy to help bridge the gap. As US allies and competitors have shown, development policy, particularly in infrastructure, can help achieve security and economic outcomes while creating a safer, more habitable, and prosperous planet for all.