For decades, the United States has reigned as the world’s largest provider of foreign aid. In 2023 alone, Washington extended over $62.33 billion in foreign assistance, according to data from the OECD. No other country came close. This massive sum has funded programs aimed at poverty reduction, disaster relief, health care, education, and rebuilding efforts in countries ravaged by war and natural calamities. U.S. foreign aid has long served not just as humanitarian support—but as a key pillar of American soft power.
But that influence is now being challenged—by China.
The Numbers: U.S. vs China
When comparing raw numbers, it may seem like there’s no contest. Between 2013 and 2018, China’s foreign aid totaled only $42 billion, averaging $7 billion per year—a far cry from the U.S.’s $47.7 billion average per year in the same period.
However, looking only at these figures misses the bigger picture. China isn’t just giving away money—it’s building influence.
In the past decade, China has ramped up its global economic engagement through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). From 2013 to 2022, Chinese institutions poured $679 billion into infrastructure across nearly 150 countries. In comparison, the U.S. spent only $76 billion on similar projects in that same period. That’s a 9-to-1 difference in favor of Beijing.
Meanwhile, during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022), China outpaced the U.S. in bilateral aid related to pandemic response, marking a new chapter in its global soft power push.
The Trump Shake-Up: U.S. Aid Under Fire
In early 2025, President Donald J. Trump returned to office with a dramatic shift in foreign policy. Through Executive Order 14169, titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” Trump paused all U.S. foreign development assistance programs for 90 days. His administration announced plans to dismantle USAID and merge its operations into the State Department.
The move led to:
- The elimination of 92% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts (worth over $54 billion)
- The termination of 5,800 out of 6,200 USAID contracts
- Cancellation of 4,100 State Department aid grants (another $4.4 billion)
These cuts quickly impacted vulnerable populations. In Pakistan, the government began preparing to deport nearly 900,000 Afghan refugees after U.S. resettlement support was frozen. In Myanmar, medical aid shortages emerged following severe floods.
The Trump administration argues that these cuts are part of a broader effort to eliminate wasteful spending and reorient aid toward U.S. national interests. With America’s national debt climbing, cutting over $63.6 billion in annual foreign aid seems like a fiscally prudent decision under the “America First” doctrine.
But many experts disagree.
The Cost of Cutting Soft Power
Foreign aid isn’t just about generosity—it’s strategy. It builds alliances, prevents conflict, and promotes American values. Pulling the plug on aid suddenly can leave a vacuum in fragile states. And who’s ready to fill that gap? China.
Despite not being a fully developed economy, China is investing billions abroad—not for charity, but for geopolitical returns. From building ports in Sri Lanka to power plants in Africa, Chinese-funded projects often result in dependence on Beijing. This type of “aid” is largely in the form of loans, not grants.
A key distinction lies here:
- The U.S. gives out grants, which don’t require repayment.
- China, on the other hand, acts more like a development bank, offering loans that must be repaid, often with strings attached.
This means developing countries may welcome Chinese investment, but they view American aid more favorably due to its non-repayable nature.
Soft vs. Hard Aid: Governance vs. Infrastructure
Another contrast is in the type of aid.
- U.S. aid often targets governance, health, education, and democracy promotion. In FY2023, for example, the U.S. spent $17 billion on governance and democracy programs.
- China does not fund such programs. Instead, it prefers to build tangible assets—roads, railways, and industrial parks.
Even in military aid, China’s reach is limited. In 2017, China donated 3,000 rifles to the Philippines after the U.S. stalled a similar arms deal. But the scale of U.S. military assistance remains unmatched. Each year, Washington delivers billions in Foreign Military Financing (FMF)—a realm where China simply doesn’t compete.
Could China Replace the U.S.?
In some ways, yes. If America walks away from its role as the world’s development leader, China is poised to step in. But Beijing’s approach is more transactional and less humanitarian. While the U.S. acts like a global development ministry, China behaves like a global development bank.
Still, for many countries, having roads and power plants built—even on debt—is better than receiving no help at all.
What Comes Next?
Although a federal judge has since ordered the freeze on U.S. foreign aid to be lifted, the Trump administration remains committed to slashing aid budgets. If these cuts are followed through, U.S. global influence may decline, and countries dependent on American support could shift allegiance to Beijing or Moscow.
In the short term, China is unlikely to match the scope and diversity of U.S. aid. But if current trends continue, Beijing could surpass Washington in total global financial influence, even if not in traditional “aid” as we define it.
For now, the world is watching:
Will the United States retreat from global leadership?
Or will it recognize that its greatest strength isn’t just its military or economy—but its ability to help others when no one else will?
What do you think? Is American aid worth saving? Or should the U.S. focus inward and let others lead the world stage?