According to a report by The Washington Post, the proposal includes a declaration that would prioritise trade relationships over traditional aid commitments. The report cited an unnamed State Department official as saying the administration is “solidifying our stance on dropping aid completely and letting companies enrich themselves on newer markets.”
Responding to the development, Eric Pelofsky, Vice President at The Rockefeller Foundation and a former National Security Council official, criticised the approach in strong terms.
“There’s no American who looks at a picture of a starving child and sees an opportunity for companies to enrich themselves,” Pelofsky said. “Americans have historically run to the fire to help rather than looking for ways to sell fire hoses to those suffering. This approach betrays America’s traditions, values, and national security interests—and it makes us less safe.”
The remarks come amid a broader debate in Washington over the future of foreign aid and its role in advancing both humanitarian and geopolitical objectives.
Earlier this week, Rajiv Shah, President of the Rockefeller Foundation and former USAID Administrator, warned of the global consequences of aid cutbacks in an op-ed, arguing that reduced support could have severe humanitarian fallout if not offset by new forms of international cooperation.
The discussion highlights a growing divide between those advocating a more market-driven global engagement strategy and those who see aid as a critical pillar of US foreign policy and global stability.
