Responses to forced displacement around the world have been plunged into uncertainty since the Trump Administration froze almost all foreign assistance on January 24. Although limited waivers have been issued for life-saving humanitarian assistance, money for this essential work is not getting through. The freeze is causing a cashflow crisis that is leading to severe and immediate cuts in all kinds of essential support for some of the world's neediest people. These cuts will only deepen while the Administration reviews all foreign assistance.
Supporting people around the world who have had to flee their homes because of war or persecution is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. It is the Christian thing to do.
Secretary Rubio has told us that, from now on, foreign assistance will be assessed by reference to three questions:
“Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
When it comes to supporting refugees and other displaced people around the world, America's foreign assistance does all three.
First, supporting refugees makes America safer because it makes the world more stable. We know that large-scale displacement can be hugely destabilizing if it is not managed well. Look at what happened when more than one million people fleeing the horrific civil war in Syria took dangerous journeys into Europe in 2015 and 2016. The governments of Europe were in a much better position than, say, Bangladesh or Uganda to absorb such large numbers of people, but their arrival still caused social, political, and economic upheaval whose effects continue to be felt around the continent today.
For countries with less capacity to respond, the arrival of tens of thousands of people will quickly overwhelm governmental structures and services. Without external support, the refugees will have no housing, no income, no access to healthcare and education. The local community will suffer too, as competition for food, water, land, and other scarce resources leads to shortages and higher prices. Such conditions create a breeding ground for instability, including extremism, inter-communal violence, and further displacement.
By supporting displaced populations and the communities that host them during their time in exile, the United States has built stability where there would have been chaos. By funding essential services and building the self-reliance of refugees, it has provided real alternatives to militias and gangs. In short, programming supported by the United States has made an incalculable contribution to human flourishing and stability around the world. And a more stable world is a safer world for all Americans.
Secondly, this stability has also brought more prosperity for the American people. We know that social instability is terrible for growth, and that terrorism and conflict disrupt global supply chains, trade routes, and markets. By investing in stability in emerging markets, America has consistently created the kinds of growth conditions that suit American enterprise.
America has also understood that, when given the opportunities, refugees can themselves be engines for growth. Some of the most entrepreneurial people I have ever met are refugees. They are, by their nature, people who see problems and take action. The United States' support for work and education programs around the world has allowed refugees to start businesses, earn an income, and spend that money in the global marketplace.
Finally, America's support for displaced people around the world has also made it stronger. America's rivals often pursue economic and geopolitical strategies that rely on unstable parts of the world for cheap resources and labor. They see continuing—or even creating—instability as being in their interests. When it supports stability around the world, the United States disrupts these strategies and weakens these rivals. It demonstrates its commitment to core values about the importance of human life and becomes a partner of choice on a whole range of topics, from economic development to military support.
And the cost of supporting stability and prosperity in this way? Most of America's funding for refugee responses around the world goes to UNHCR, the United Nations Refugee Agency. In 2024, the United States provided 42% of UNHCR's funding at a cost of just $6 per person living in the United States.
That's an entire year of programming that makes America safer, stronger, and more prosperous for the cost of one Big Mac each.
This is not to say that America's funding should not be scrutinized. It should be. Organizations spending American money must be held accountable for doing so efficiently and for the purposes for which it was provided. Oversight must be rigorous.
America has a proud, decades-long, bipartisan history of supporting refugees and other displaced people around the world, dating back at least as far as the Marshall Plan. The Americans who appropriated, spent, and delivered that support knew that it was the right thing to do, but also that it was in America's interest. Ending this support would not make America safer, stronger, or more prosperous. It would breed instability of the kind that gives rise to terrorism, civil war, and further displacement. It would destabilize emerging markets, undermining American investment and business there and potentially having knock-on effects for the global economy. It would create the kind of misery that would alienate friends and potential allies, creating a void that America's rivals would happily step into.
Patrick Wall is a co-founder of the Global Strategic Initiatives Group, an impact driven consultancy that works to develop innovative, ambitious, and pragmatic solutions to global challenges.
Read Full Article »
