Secretary of State Marco Rubio laid out a strategic framework to guide US foreign policy and development support, in line with President Trump's executive order for foreign aid on his inauguration day. It will make America safer, stronger and more prosperous.
These objectives feel intuitive to us and to many Americans. But they leave plenty of wiggling space for determining which policy areas to prioritize and which interventions to fund.
If done correctly, US foreign investments have more important impacts and better value for taxpayers. But if they are poorly implemented, we invite China and Russia to fill the gap we create, not unintentionally making America safe, weak and prosperous.
As former foreign aid critics became reform champions and experts in the economics of international aid, we here provide the beginning of a blueprint for US foreign aid meeting the severity of the task.
Start by dividing the tests of the assistance program into theory and evidence.
By theory, do certain awards aim to change countries or regions in a way that promotes American interests? For evidence, do award funding interventions provide measurable outcomes or do they provide a rigorous impact assessment to produce new, quantifiable outcomes?
When there is less conflict and there is more positive American sentiment, America is safer. This leads to fewer terrorists. Dollars spent on well-designed, effective foreign aid (and more widely diplomacy) save more dollars on bullets and boots, leave more money in America's pockets, and promote secondarily the goal of prosperity.
America is also safer, with fewer infectious diseases, which could lead to the next pandemic.
The concept of prosperity is simple. It involves increasing employment and revenue for Americans and businesses, increasing investment opportunities for American companies, improving the market for American products, lowering the price of Americans buying everything from food to electronics and clothing.
So why is it making America stronger? America's view as a force for moral leadership and the goodness of the world.
Rubio created this point as a senator when he expressed his support for humanitarian work because of his Christian values and empathy. He is not alone. In response to the disaster, all striped Americans opened their pocketbooks and were moved by the shared humanity and their desire to do harm and help people.
At the national level, this means maintaining a value-driven, ethical and moral leadership role. Simply put, America is great (or strong) when it's good.
When we do the right thing for itself, we become stronger. The Golden Rules are rooted in countless religions and philosophies.
In the Bible, Matthew 7:12 says“So, in everything, do something else that you can do to you.” “But make sure you create a bank from everything you do.”
Recognizing that helping others makes America stronger, many development programs will pass the “theory” test. You must also pass the “evidence” test. It's not enough to have ambiguous purposes. It also needs to work.
This is a rewarding part, and by doing this right, we can set the stage for reimagined foreign aid that is effective, efficient and useful in the national interest.
You have to ask about “program efficiency.” You need to choose from the programs you will do when you allocate limited resources to international aid, not just to remove programs that do not work. When one of us was recently at USAID as the Chief Economist, he often calls himself the “Chief Trade Off Off Officer.” This is the role of helping budget holders choose from among the options to maximize impact.
Significantly, if there is already sufficient evidence to know that the intervention will work, tracking the outcome should mean measuring the success of program delivery. Collecting data is also wise and should use existing evidence if it is available and beneficial.
For example, USAID's Development Innovation Venture Program defends more randomised ratings than other agencies, and is well documented. Investment return ratio of 17 to 1 From the past 10 years.
Putting this all together, sketches emerge to guide foreign aid decisions.
The “theory” test determines for each sector, if properly designed, which type of programme meets at least one of the three criteria: “safer,” “stronger,” or “more prosperous.” For “evidence” tests, this award must be rigorously measured for its own impact or designed based on strong evidence. Many life-saving programs will get green light under these conditions.
Ultimately, the goal of US foreign aid is to support programs that improve the safety, strength, or prosperity of America that actually function. In both cases, getting zero makes the others pointless.
Ted Yoho, a Florida Republican, served in Congress from 2013 to 2021, during which he chaired the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee in the Asia-Pacific region from 2017 to 2019. He co-chairs the development reform consensus. Dean Carlan is a professor of economics and finance at Northwestern University and was Chief Economist at USAID from 2025 to 2025.
