Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S.
January 10, 2022
Programs and Policy
Emily M. Morgenstern
Foreign assistance is the largest component of the international affairs budget and is viewed by
Analyst in Foreign
many Members of Congress as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. On the basis of
Assistance and Foreign
national security, commercial, and humanitarian rationales, U.S. assistance flows through many
Policy
federal agencies and supports myriad objectives. These objectives include promoting economic

growth, reducing poverty, improving governance, expanding access to health care and education,
Nick M. Brown
promoting stability in conflict regions, countering terrorism, promoting human rights,
Analyst in Foreign
strengthening allies, and curbing illicit drug production and trafficking. Since the terrorist attacks
Assistance and Foreign
of September 11, 2001, foreign aid has increasingly been associated with national security policy.
Policy
At the same time, some Americans and Members of Congress view foreign aid as an expense that

the United States cannot afford given current budget deficits and competing budget priorities.

In FY2019, U.S. foreign assistance, defined broadly, totaled an estimated $48.18 billion, or 1%
of total federal budget authority. About 41% of this assistance was for bilateral economic development programs, including
strategic economic assistance; 35% for military and nonmilitary security assistance; 20% for humanitarian activities; and 4%
to support the work of multilateral institutions. Assistance can take the form of cash transfers, equipment and commodities,
infrastructure, education and training, or technical assistance, and, in recent decades, is provided almost exclusively on a
grant rather than loan basis. Most U.S. aid is implemented by nongovernmental organizations rather than foreign
governments. The United States is the largest foreign aid donor in the world, accounting for nearly 23% of total official
development assistance from major donor governments in 2019 (the latest year for which these data are available).
Key foreign assistance trends since 2001 include growth in development aid, particularly global health programs; increased
security assistance directed toward U.S. allies for anti-terrorism efforts; and high levels of humanitarian assistance to address
a range of crises. Adjusted for inflation, annual foreign assistance funding since FY2003 has been higher than in any period
since the Marshall Plan was implemented in the years immediately following World War II. In FY2019, Afghanistan, Israel,
Jordan, Egypt, and Iraq received the largest amounts of U.S. assistance, reflecting long-standing commitments to Israel and
Egypt, the strategic significance of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the strategic and humanitarian importance of Jordan as the
crisis in neighboring Syria continues. Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa regions each received 25%
of assistance allocated by country or region in FY2019, followed by South and Central Asia, at 14%.
This report provides an overview of U.S. foreign assistance by answering frequently asked questions on the subject. It is
intended to provide a broad view of foreign assistance over time, and will be updated periodically. For more current
information on foreign aid funding levels, see CRS Report R46935, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs: FY2022 Budget and Appropriations
, by Cory R. Gill, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern.
Congressional Research Service


link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 13 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 16 link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 19 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 21 link to page 22 link to page 22 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 30 link to page 32 link to page 32 link to page 32 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Contents
Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy ................................................. 1
How Is “U.S. Foreign Assistance” Defined and Counted? ....................................................... 1
Foreign Aid Purposes and Priorities ................................................................................................ 3
What Are the Rationales and Objectives of U.S. Foreign Assistance? ..................................... 3
Rationales for Foreign Aid .................................................................................................. 3
Objectives of Foreign Aid ................................................................................................... 4
What Are the Major Foreign Aid Funding Categories and Accounts? ...................................... 5
Bilateral Development Assistance ...................................................................................... 6
Multilateral Development Assistance ................................................................................. 7
Humanitarian Assistance ..................................................................................................... 7
Strategic Economic Assistance ........................................................................................... 8
Security Assistance ............................................................................................................. 9
Delivery of Foreign Assistance ...................................................................................................... 11
What Executive Branch Agencies Implement Foreign Assistance Programs? ........................ 11
U.S. Agency for International Development ..................................................................... 12
U.S. Department of Defense ............................................................................................. 12
U.S. Department of State .................................................................................................. 13
U.S. Department of the Treasury ...................................................................................... 13
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .............................................................. 14
Millennium Challenge Corporation .................................................................................. 14
Other Agencies .................................................................................................................. 14

What Are the Different Forms in Which U.S. Assistance Is Provided? .................................. 15
Expertise ........................................................................................................................... 15
Training ............................................................................................................................. 16
Grants ................................................................................................................................ 16
In-Kind Goods .................................................................................................................. 16
Economic Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 16
Direct Budget Support ...................................................................................................... 17
How Much Assistance Is Provided as Loans and How Much as Grants? What Are
Some Types of Loans? Have Loans Been Repaid? Why Is Repayment of Some
Loans Forgiven? ................................................................................................................... 17

Loan/Grant Composition .................................................................................................. 17
Development Finance ....................................................................................................... 18
Debt Forgiveness .............................................................................................................. 18

Does the Private Sector Have a Role in Foreign Assistance? ................................................. 19
Which Countries Receive U.S. Foreign Assistance? ............................................................... 19

Foreign Aid Spending .................................................................................................................... 21
How Large Is the U.S. Foreign Assistance Budget? ............................................................... 21
What Does Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Mean?................................................ 23
How Much Foreign Assistance Is Spent on U.S. Goods and Services? .................................. 24
How Does the United States Rank as a Donor of Foreign Aid? .............................................. 26
Congress and Foreign Assistance .................................................................................................. 28
What Congressional Committees Oversee Foreign Aid Programs? ........................................ 28
What Are the Major Foreign Aid Legislative Vehicles? .......................................................... 28


Congressional Research Service


link to page 10 link to page 15 link to page 19 link to page 25 link to page 26 link to page 27 link to page 28 link to page 31 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 37 link to page 38 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Figures
Figure 1. FY2019 Aid Program Composition ................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Foreign Assistance Implementing Agencies, FY2019 .................................................... 11
Figure 3. Assistance by Type, FY2019 Obligations ...................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Regional Distribution of Assistance, FY1999, FY2009, and FY2019 ........................... 21
Figure 5. Aid as a Percentage of the Federal Budget and GDP, FY1976-FY2019 ........................ 22
Figure 6. Foreign Assistance Funding Trends, FY1976-FY2019 .................................................. 23
Figure 7. Overseas Contingency Operations, FY2012-FY2021 .................................................... 24
Figure 8. Top 15 Bilateral Donors of Official Development Assistance, 2019 ............................. 27

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance from All Sources, by Objective and Program Area:
FY2019 ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Top Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance from All Sources,
FY1999, FY2009, and FY2019 .................................................................................................. 20

Table A-1. Foreign Aid Funding Trends (Obligations) .................................................................. 30

Appendixes
Appendix A. Data Table ................................................................................................................ 30
Appendix B. Common Foreign Assistance Abbreviations ............................................................ 33

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 34


Congressional Research Service

link to page 37 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S.
Programs and Policy
U.S. foreign assistance (also commonly called foreign aid—the two terms are used
interchangeably in this report) is the largest component of the international affairs budget, for
decades viewed by many Members of Congress as an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy.1
Since the European Recovery Program (better known as the Marshall Plan) helped rebuild Europe
after World War II in an effort to bolster the economy of postwar Europe, prevent the expansion
of communism, and jumpstart world trade, U.S. foreign assistance programs have continually
evolved to reflect changing foreign policy strategy, global challenges, and U.S. domestic
priorities.2 The Cold War emphasis on containing communism was replaced by regional
development priorities and a focus on counter-narcotics assistance in the 1990s. After the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001, a large portion of U.S. assistance focused on counterterrorism
programs and efforts related to U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same
time, global health assistance expanded significantly to address the global HIV/AIDS epidemic.
More recently, foreign assistance policy has focused on strategic competition with China and
Russia and addressing protracted global humanitarian crises. Each year, Congress considers the
size, composition, and purpose of foreign assistance programs, primarily through the
appropriations process.
This report addresses a number of the more frequently asked questions regarding U.S. foreign
assistance; its objectives, costs, and organization; the role of Congress; and how it compares to
those of other aid donors. The report attempts not only to present a current snapshot of U.S.
foreign assistance, but also to illustrate the extent to which this instrument of U.S. foreign policy
has evolved over time.
Data presented in the report are the most current, consistent, and reliable figures available,
generally updated through FY2019. Dollar amounts come from a variety of sources, including
ForeignAssistance.gov and annual Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs (SFOPS) appropriations acts. The report will be revised as new data are obtained or
additional issues and questions arise.
Foreign assistance abbreviations used in this report are listed in Appendix B.
How Is “U.S. Foreign Assistance” Defined and Counted?
In its broadest sense, U.S. foreign assistance, or foreign aid, is defined under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195, as amended, FAA), the primary legislative basis of these
programs, as

1 Other tools of U.S. foreign policy are the U.S. defense establishment, the diplomatic corps, public diplomacy, and
trade policy. American defense capabilities, even if not employed, stand as a potential stick that can be wielded to
obtain specific objectives. The State Department diplomatic corps are the eyes, ears, and often the negotiating voice of
the U.S. government abroad. Public diplomacy programs, such as the Fulbright program and Voice of America, project
an image of the United States that may influence foreign views. U.S. trade policy—through free trade agreements and
Export-Import Bank financing, for example—may directly affect the economies of other nations. Foreign aid is a
particularly flexible tool—it can act as both carrot and stick, and is a means of influencing events, solving specific
problems, and projecting U.S. values.
2 For more information on the Marshall Plan, see CRS Report R45079, The Marshall Plan: Design, Accomplishments,
and Significance
.
Congressional Research Service

1

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

any tangible or intangible item provided by the United States Government [including “by
means of gift, loan, sale, credit, or guaranty”] to a foreign country or international
organization under this or any other Act, including but not limited to any training, service,
or technical advice, any item of real, personal, or mixed property, any agricultural
commodity, United States dollars, and any currencies of any foreign country which are
owned by the United States Government.... (§634(b))
For many decades, nearly all assistance annually requested by the executive branch and debated
and authorized by Congress was ultimately encompassed in the foreign operations appropriations
measure (currently within the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs
[SFOPS] appropriations measure) and the international food aid title of the Agriculture
appropriations measure.3 In the U.S. federal budget, the 150 (international affairs) budget
function has subsumed these traditional foreign assistance accounts.4 The SFOPS bill and
Function 150 budget also include State Department diplomatic and related programs, which are
not considered foreign assistance.
By the 1990s, it became increasingly apparent that the scope of U.S. foreign assistance was not
fully accounted for by the total of the foreign operations and international food aid
appropriations. Many U.S. departments and agencies had adopted their own assistance programs,
funded out of their respective budgets and commonly in the form of professional exchanges with
counterpart agencies abroad. These assistance efforts, conducted outside the purview of the
traditional foreign aid authorization and appropriations committees, grew more substantial and
varied in the mid-1990s. The Department of Defense (DOD) Nunn-Lugar effort provided billions
in aid to secure and eliminate nuclear and other weapons, as did Department of Energy activities
to control and protect nuclear materials—both aimed largely at the former Soviet Union. Growing
participation by DOD in health and humanitarian efforts and expansion of health programs in
developing countries by the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, especially in response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, followed. In the wake of the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, and the subsequent U.S. invasions of
Iraq and Afghanistan, DOD-funded and implemented aid programs in Iraq and Afghanistan to
train and equip foreign forces, complemented by development efforts to “win hearts and minds”
of local populations, have at times been considerably larger than other military and development
assistance programs provided under the foreign operations appropriations measure.
While the executive branch requests and Congress debates most foreign aid within the parameters
of the SFOPS appropriations measure, both branches of government have sought to ascertain a
fuller picture of assistance programs through improved data collection and reporting. Significant
discrepancies remain between data available for different types of aid and, therefore, the level of
analysis applied to each. (See text box, “A Note on Numbers and Sources,” below.) Nevertheless,
to the extent possible, this report tries to capture the broadest definition of aid.

3 Congress currently appropriates most foreign affairs funding through the annual SFOPS appropriations bill. Prior to
FY2008, Congress provided funding for the Department of State, international broadcasting, and related programs
within the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations and separately appropriated
funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and foreign aid within the Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs appropriations. For more information, see CRS Report R44637, Department
of State and Foreign Operations Appropriations: History of Legislation and Funding in Brief
, by Emily M.
Morgenstern.
4 The President’s budget and the congressional budget resolution classify federal budgetary activities into functional
and subfunctional categories that represent the major purposes of the federal government.
Congressional Research Service

2

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

A Note on Data and Sources
Foreign assistance data are available from a variety of sources, each with limitations. This report uses data from
two sources:

The State Department’s ForeignAssistance.gov database, which uses the FAA definition of aid and includes
reporting from 30 agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services,
among others. Stretching back to 1946, with program sector breakdowns from 2001 forward, this is
currently the most comprehensive source of U.S. foreign aid data. 5

Official Development Assistance (ODA), reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD, an international organization with 36 members, including the United States), differs
from the FAA assistance definition primarily in that it excludes all military assistance and aid to developed
countries. This is the most comprehensive source of aid data that includes all major donor countries and
allows for comparison across donors.
The choice of these sources reflects an effort to ensure consistency in calculations, but disparities between these
sources exist due to differing definitions of foreign assistance, as noted above, and to reporting timeframes.
ForeignAssistance.gov reports funds by fiscal year, while ODA figures are reported by calendar year. To minimize
confusion, this report uses aid obligation data from ForeignAssistance.gov wherever possible. ODA data are used
only in the section comparing U.S. assistance levels to those of other donor countries.
Agencies and donor countries report assistance after it has been obligated or disbursed, not appropriated. For this
reason, there is a lag in data reporting such that at the start of FY2022, the most recent comprehensive data in
ForeignAssistance.gov is from FY2019 and the OECD’s ODA data are updated through calendar year 2019.
Agency reporting practices may also be inconsistent or incomplete. Many Defense Department security
cooperation program expenditures, for example, are made confidential in the interests of national security, and
others may be classified as joint military cooperation, rather than assistance.
For more recent data on foreign aid funded through the SFOPS appropriation—including FY2021 enacted
funding—see CRS Report R46935, Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2022 Budget and
Appropriations
, by Cory R. Gil , Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern.
Foreign Aid Purposes and Priorities
What Are the Rationales and Objectives of U.S. Foreign Assistance?
Foreign assistance is predicated on several rationales and supports many objectives. The
importance and emphasis of various rationales and objectives have changed over time.
Rationales for Foreign Aid
Throughout the past 70 years, there have been three key rationales for foreign assistance:
National Security. The predominant theme of U.S. assistance programs has been
national security. While rebuilding Europe after World War II under the Marshall
Plan (1948-1951) and throughout the Cold War, policymakers viewed U.S. aid
programs as a way to prevent the incursion of communist influence and secure
U.S. base rights or other support in the anti-Soviet struggle. More recently, after
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, policymakers
frequently cast foreign assistance as a tool in U.S. counterterrorism strategy. The
national security rationale is sometimes interpreted broadly, to include not only
military threats against the United States but physical threats to Americans’
welfare—including pandemics and illicit narcotics.

5 Greenbook data, now available as part of ForeignAssistance.gov, provides aid obligation data by broad accounts from
1946 to 2013 and program sector breakdowns from 2001 to 2013.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 link to page 8 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Commercial Interests. Foreign assistance has long been defended as a way to
either promote U.S. exports by creating new customers for U.S. goods and
services or by improving the global economic environment in which U.S.
companies compete. Among the objectives of the aforementioned Marshall Plan
was to reestablish the capacity of European countries to trade with the United
States.
Humanitarian Concerns. Humanitarian concerns drive both short-term
assistance in response to crises and disasters as well as long-term development
assistance aimed at reducing poverty, fighting disease, and other forms of human
suffering brought on by more systemic problems. Humanitarian concern has
generally been the aid rationale most broadly supported by the American public
and policymakers alike. Generally, agencies define “humanitarian assistance” as
responding to short-term crises, while “development assistance” refers to long-
term development aims.
Objectives of Foreign Aid
In 2006, in an effort to rationalize the assistance program more clearly, the State Department
developed a framework that organizes U.S. foreign aid around five strategic objectives, each of
which includes a number of program elements, also known as sectors. The five objectives are
Peace and Security, Investing in People, Governing Justly and Democratically, Economic
Growth, and Humanitarian Assistance. Generally, these objectives and their sectors do not
correspond to any one particular budget account in appropriations bills.6 Annually, the
Department of State and USAID develop their foreign operations budget request within this
framework, allowing for an objective and program-oriented viewpoint for those who seek it. The
foreign aid tracking database (Foreignassistance.gov) currently provides a more complete picture
of funds obligated for each objective from all parts of the U.S. government (see Table 1).
Table 1. U.S. Foreign Assistance from All Sources, by Objective and Program Area:
FY2019
(obligations in millions of current U.S. dollars)
Aid Objectives and Program Areas
FY2019
Aid Objectives and Program Areas FY2019
Peace and Security
16,109.0 Investing in People
9,273.16
9
Counterterrorism
507.63 Health
8,317.53
Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction
727.68 Education
934.20
Stabilization/Security Sector Reform
11,937.29 Social Services and Assistance
21.43
Counternarcotics
48.66

Transnational Crime
165.59 Governing Justly & Democratically 3,000.16
Conflict Mitigation
488.76 Rule of Law & Human Rights
1,635.55
Peace and Security - General
2,233.48 Good Governance
719.07

6 Most of these objectives are funded through several appropriations accounts. For instance, the objective of Governing
Justly and Democratically and each of its individual sectoral elements (see Table 1) are funded through portions of the
Development Assistance, Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA), Economic Support Fund (ESF),
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE), and Democracy Fund accounts, as well as by various
programs run through other agencies (i.e., those outside of the Department of State, USAID, and the Department of
Defense).
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Aid Objectives and Program Areas
FY2019
Aid Objectives and Program Areas FY2019

Political Competition
216.10
Promoting Economic Growth
4,224.83 Civil Society
347.31
Macroeconomic Growth
1,096.35 Democracy and Governance - General
7.68

Trade & Investment
146.69 Policies, Regulations, and Systems
74.47
Financial Sector
69.65

Infrastructure
942.69 Humanitarian Assistance
9,369.58
Agriculture
1,118.69 Protection, Assistance & Solutions
8,904.09
Private Sector Competitiveness
371.79 Disaster Readiness
215.21
92
Economic Opportunity
34.49 Humanitarian Assistance - General
250.28
Environment
372.84

Labor, Mining, Manufacturing
71.65 International Contributions
377.29


Program Management
3,285.81



Multi-Sector
1,634.54
Source: Foreignassistance.gov and CRS calculations.
Note: Figures represent net obligations, including de-obligated funds. A similar framework table is included in
annual SFOPS congressional budget justifications, and includes only funding in the international affairs (function
150) budget.
Characterizing aid in this way may provide an incomplete picture, as there is considerable overlap
among aid categories and purposes. A health project directed at alleviating the effects of
HIV/AIDS by feeding orphan children, for example, may also stimulate grassroots democracy
and civil society through support of local NGOs. Microcredit programs that support small
business development may at the same time enable client entrepreneurs to provide food and
education to their children. Water and sanitation improvements may both mitigate health threats
and stimulate economic growth by saving time previously devoted to water collection, raising
school attendance for girls, and facilitating tourism, among other effects. This framework also
does not capture “cross-cutting” priorities, such as gender equality, youth empowerment,
resilience to future threats, and use of science and technology.
What Are the Major Foreign Aid Funding Categories and Accounts?
The framework used by the Department of State since 2006 organizes assistance by strategic
objective and sector. But there are many other ways to categorize foreign aid, one of which is
according to the types of activities foreign aid accounts are expected to support, using broad
categories including bilateral development, multilateral development, humanitarian assistance,
strategic economic support, and security and military activities. Such broad categories are used,
with some variation, in the title structure of SFOPS appropriations legislation, and can be applied
to the international food aid title of the Agriculture appropriations as well as to DOD and other
government agency assistance programs. Figure 1 shows total FY2019 (the most recent year for
which complete data are available) foreign assistance obligations from all government agencies
categorized this way.
Congressional Research Service

5


Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Bilateral Development Assistance
Figure 1. FY2019 Aid Program
For FY2019, U.S. government departments
Composition
and agencies obligated about $14.6 billion for
bilateral development assistance (31% of total
foreign aid), which is generally intended to
improve the economic development and
welfare of poor countries. USAID and the
State Department jointly administer the
majority of bilateral development assistance
accounts, including the Development
Assistance (DA) and Global Health Programs
(GHP) accounts and USAID’s Operating
Expenses account. Other bilateral

development assistance accounts support the
Source: Foreignassistance.gov and CRS calculations.
development efforts of distinct agencies, such as the Peace Corps, Inter-American Foundation
(IAF), Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the U.S. International Development
Finance Corporation (DFC), among others. The Secretary of State supervises all bilateral foreign
assistance funding under SFOPS appropriations, though the mechanism differs by agency: either
through direct programming (Democracy Fund; Global Health-State); supervision of the agency’s
leadership (USAID); membership in agency leadership (MCC; DFC); and overall guidance of
U.S. foreign policy (Peace Corps).
By far the largest portion of bilateral development assistance is devoted to global health. These
programs support objectives such as improving maternal and child health, increasing access to
family planning and reproductive health services, and strengthening the government health
systems that provide care. Since March 2020, addressing the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-
19) pandemic in developing countries has become a global health priority. The largest share of
global health funding, however, is directed toward treating and combatting the spread of
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. These funds are largely directed through the State
Department’s Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator to other agencies, including USAID and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The latter agency and the National Institutes for
Health also conduct programs funded by Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS)
appropriations.7
Bilateral development assistance programs also aim to foster sustainable broad-based economic
growth, social stability, and effective governance in developing countries. USAID largely
manages this aid to fund long-term projects in a wide range of areas:
 Agriculture programs focus on reducing poverty and hunger, promoting trade
opportunities for farmers, enabling economic growth, and encouraging sound
environmental practices for sustainable agriculture. This includes Food for Peace
Act (FFPA) funds used to provide nonemergency food commodities for
development-oriented purposes and send hundreds of U.S. volunteers as
technical advisors to train farm and food-related groups throughout the world.8

7 For more information on global health assistance, see CRS Report R43115, U.S. Global Health Appropriations:
FY2001-FY2019
, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther, and CRS In Focus IF11758, U.S. Global Health Funding: FY2017-FY2022
Request
, by Tiaji Salaam-Blyther.
8 For more information on international food aid programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food
Assistance: An Overview
, by Alyssa R. Casey and Emily M. Morgenstern.
Congressional Research Service

6

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

 Private sector development programs, including support for business
associations; micro, small, and medium enterprises; and economic policymaking.
 Programs for managing natural resources and protecting the global environment,
with a focus on conserving biodiversity; improving the management of land,
water, and forests; encouraging clean and efficient energy production and use;
and reducing, mitigating, and adapting to the threat of global climate change.
 Programs with the objective of “governing justly and democratically,” which
include support for promoting rule of law and human rights, good governance,
political competition, and civil society.
 Programs with the objective of “investing in people,” including support for basic,
secondary, and higher education; improving government ability to provide social
services; water and sanitation; and health care.
Multilateral Development Assistance
A share of U.S. foreign assistance—4% ($1.8 billion) in FY2019—is provided to finance
multilateral development efforts. Multilateral development assistance often supports programs
and objectives similar to those funded through bilateral development assistance, but is channeled
through organizations and mechanisms that combine U.S. funds with contributions from other
donor nations to share the costs of development activities, drawing on a wider range of
development experience and perspectives. Multilateral aid is funded largely through the
International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account and individual accounts for each of the
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) within the SFOPS appropriation.9 MDBs are
international institutions that provide loans, grants, and technical assistance to developing
countries to aid their economic and social development.
The multilateral approach to aid gives the United States less control over how assistance funds
are used compared to bilateral economic assistance, though it also affords the United States a
voice in such multilateral efforts. In determining U.S. contributions to the various multilateral
institutions, the United States faces the challenge of finding the right balance between the benefits
of burden sharing and the constraints of shared control. Policymakers may also consider the
strategic implications of U.S. funding levels relative to those of other donors, as funding may be
commensurate with influence in some multilateral fora.
In FY2019, the United States contributed to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and MDBs, such as the World Bank, among
other multilateral organizations and initiatives.10 The U.S. share of donor contributions to each of
these entities varies widely.
Humanitarian Assistance
Unlike development assistance programs, which are often viewed as long-term efforts,
humanitarian assistance programs are devoted largely to the immediate alleviation of human
suffering caused by both natural and human-induced disasters, including conflict associated with
failed or failing states. For FY2019, obligations for humanitarian assistance programs amounted

9 This aid is distinct from U.S. dues (assessed contributions) paid to multilateral organizations such as the United
Nations, which are not considered foreign assistance. It is also distinct from bilateral assistance that may be
implemented by multilateral agencies under a contract or cooperative agreement with a U.S. agency.
10 For more information on the MDBs, see CRS Report R41170, Multilateral Development Banks: Overview and Issues
for Congress
, by Rebecca M. Nelson.
Congressional Research Service

7

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

to $9.6 billion, or 20% of total foreign assistance. USAID manages the largest portion of
humanitarian assistance through the International Disaster Assistance (IDA) account, which
provides relief and rehabilitation to victims of human-induced and natural disasters. Recent
responses have addressed needs arising from the economic and social dislocations resulting from
the ongoing crises in Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela, as well as immediate humanitarian needs
stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. A portion of IDA is used for food assistance through
the Emergency Food Security Program.
Additional humanitarian assistance is administered by the State Department and funded under the
Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) and the Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
(ERMA) accounts, aimed at addressing the needs of migrants, refugees, and internally displaced
persons. These accounts support a number of refugee relief organizations, including the U.N.
High Commission for Refugees and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The
Department of Defense also provides disaster relief under the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster,
and Civic Assistance (OHDACA) account of the DOD appropriations.11 Such relief may include
logistics support and transportation for humanitarian supplies, addressing hazards to humanitarian
delivery such as landmines and other unexploded explosive ordnance, and search and rescue
operations, among others.
Approximately 83% of FFPA Title II Agriculture appropriations—nearly $1.5 billion in
obligations in FY2019—are used by USAID to address emergency humanitarian needs, mostly to
purchase U.S. agricultural commodities to supplement both refugee and disaster assistance
programs.12
Strategic Economic Assistance
A few accounts provide economic assistance intended to support U.S. political and strategic
interests rather than development or humanitarian goals. Programs funded through the Economic
Support Fund (ESF) account may be indistinguishable from those funded through other
development assistance accounts, but are implemented in countries of strategic significance to the
United States, and often intended to promote the political and economic stability of U.S. allies.13
ESF also provides direct budget support to foreign governments and to support sovereign loan
guarantees. For FY2019, USAID and the State Department obligated $4.1 billion, nearly 9% of
total foreign assistance, through this account.
For many years, following the 1979 Camp David accords, most ESF funds went to support the
Middle East Peace Process—in FY1999, for example, 85% of ESF went to Israel, Egypt, the West
Bank, and Jordan. Those proportions have been significantly lower in recent decades. In FY2009,
28% of ESF funding went to these countries and, in FY2019, 26%. Since the September 2001
terrorist attacks, ESF has largely supported countries key to U.S. global counterterrorism efforts
such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In FY2009, for example, activities in Iraq and Afghanistan received
46% of ESF funding; that level fell to 24% in FY2019, in line with decreased U.S. military
presence.

11 For further information on humanitarian programs, see CRS In Focus IF10568, Overview of the Global
Humanitarian and Displacement Crisis
, by Rhoda Margesson.
12 Until FY1998, food provided commercially under long-term, low-interest loan terms (Title I of the Food for Peace
Act [sometimes referred to as P.L. 480]) was also included in the foreign assistance account. Because of its export
focus, it is no longer considered foreign aid. For more information on food aid programs, see CRS Report R45422, U.S.
International Food Assistance: An Overview
, by Alyssa R. Casey and Emily M. Morgenstern. For more information on
the distribution of FFPA Title II funds for FY2019, see USAID’s International Food Assistance Report for FY2019.
13 USAID estimates that over 90% of ESF funds are implemented by USAID for development purposes.
Congressional Research Service

8

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Over the years, Congress has established other accounts to meet specific strategic interests (some
have since been dissolved or reorganized once the need was met). One example is the Assistance
to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA) account, established in FY2009 to combine two
aid programs that arose from the demise of the Soviet empire to help Central Europe and the
newly independent states of the former Soviet Union achieve democratic systems and free market
economies. Congress briefly retired the account before reestablishing it in the wake of Russian
incursions in the independent states. USAID’s Transition Initiatives account also focuses largely
on strategic goals, supporting civil society, free media, and inclusive governance in countries and
communities in political transition. Certain entities funded through SFOPS, such as the National
Endowment for Democracy, also align with strategic aims through promoting U.S. values.
Similarly, the State Department’s Democracy Fund is driven in part by efforts to advance U.S.
foreign policy goals. Additionally, recent SFOPS legislation has directed funds from several
development and security assistance accounts to address specific strategic priorities, including the
Countering Russian Influence Fund, the Countering Chinese Influence Fund, and the Indo-Pacific
Strategy.
In the recent past, several DOD-funded aid programs directed at Afghanistan also provided
economic assistance with largely strategic objectives. The Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund and
the Business Task Force wound down as the U.S. military presence in that country declined; the
Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) still existed until the U.S. withdrawal from
the country. The latter two programs had earlier iterations as well in Iraq.
Security Assistance
In addition to development aid, certain U.S. foreign assistance accounts seek to advance specific
U.S. national security aims, including strengthening military and law enforcement capacities of
U.S. partners, countering the flows of illicit products such as nuclear materials and narcotics, and
supporting peacekeeping operations in fragile states.
Nonmilitary Security Assistance
Several U.S. assistance accounts support programs to address global concerns that are considered
threats to U.S. security and well-being, such as terrorism, illicit narcotics, crime, and weapons
proliferation, by bolstering the law enforcement capabilities of foreign partners. In the past two
decades, policymakers have increased support for these programs. In FY2019, these programs
amounted to $2.8 billion, or 6% of total assistance. Nonmilitary bilateral security assistance
includes two major objectives: strengthening the justice sector in developing countries, including
countering narcotics production and trade, and mitigating the spread of certain weapons.
The State Department is the main administrator of nonmilitary counternarcotics programs.14 The
State-managed International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) account supports
counternarcotics activities, most notably in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Peru, and Colombia. Programs
funded under INCLE also help develop the judicial systems—assisting judges, lawyers, and legal
institutions—of many developing countries. DOD and USAID also support counternarcotics
activities, the former largely by providing training and equipment, the latter by offering

14 DOD also funds counternarcotics programs to support foreign militaries involved in counternarcotics efforts, but the
State Department is designated to oversee counternarcotics support to civilian law enforcement entities.
Congressional Research Service

9

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

alternative crop and employment programs (which generally are considered bilateral development
assistance).15
Since the mid-1990s, three U.S. agencies—State, DOD, and Energy—have provided funding,
technical assistance, and equipment to counter the proliferation of chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear weapons, and land mines. Originally aimed at the former Soviet Union
under the rubric of cooperative threat reduction (CTR), these programs sought to secure such
weapons and prevent their spread to rogue nations or terrorist groups.16 While CTR is provided
through Defense appropriations, the State Department manages the Nonproliferation, Anti-
Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) account, which provides for
nonproliferation efforts and encompasses civilian anti-terrorism efforts such as detecting and
dismantling terrorist financial networks, establishing watch-list systems at border controls, and
building partner country anti-terrorism capacities. NADR also funds humanitarian demining
programs.
Military Assistance
U.S. military assistance provides defense articles and equipment, military training, and other
defense-related services to the national-level security forces of U.S. allies and partners. At $13.9
billion, military assistance accounted for about 29% of total U.S. foreign aid in FY2019. The
Department of State administers three accounts that fund programs implemented by DOD’s
Defense Security Cooperation Administration: Foreign Military Financing (FMF), International
Military Education and Training (IMET), and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO). Other military
assistance is funded and implemented directly by DOD.
The bulk of military assistance is used to train and equip foreign militaries. FMF, by far the
largest of these three State-managed military assistance accounts, provides primarily grant
assistance to foreign governments for the purchase of U.S. defense equipment and military
training under the Foreign Military Sales program.17 FMF supports U.S. foreign policy and the
U.S. defense industry, while helping ensure the interoperability of weapons systems among allies
and partners. In FY2019, FMF assistance primarily supported the security needs of Israel, Egypt,
Jordan, and Pakistan. Since 2002, DOD appropriations have also supported FMF-like programs,
training and equipping security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. These programs and the accounts
that fund them are called the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) and, through FY2012, the
Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF). Beginning in FY2015, similar support was provided Iraq under
the Iraq Train and Equip Fund. DOD also funds train and equip efforts under a global capacity-
building program.18
PKO funds are used to support voluntary peacekeeping, humanitarian, and counterterrorism
operations, including those not sponsored by the United Nations. PKO also funds capacity-
building of U.S. allies and partners in stabilization, conflict resolution, and counterterrorism.

15 For more information on counternarcotics efforts, see CRS Report RL34543, International Drug Control Policy:
Background and U.S. Responses
, by Liana W. Rosen.
16 For further information on nonproliferation efforts, see CRS Report R43143, The Evolution of Cooperative Threat
Reduction: Issues for Congress
, by Mary Beth D. Nikitin and Amy F. Woolf.
17 In the past, FMF has also been provided as loans. While reverting to lending has been proposed, Congress has not
adopted such a change. For more information on the Foreign Military Sales program, see CRS In Focus IF11437,
Transfer of Defense Articles: Foreign Military Sales (FMS), by Nathan J. Lucas and Michael J. Vassalotti.
18 For further information on DOD security cooperation, see CRS In Focus IF11677, Defense Primer: DOD “Title 10”
Security Cooperation
, by Christina L. Arabia.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 link to page 16
Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

PKO supports both regional initiatives, such as training for an African crisis response force, and
individual peacekeeping forces such as those in South Sudan and Central African Republic.19
IMET funds the attendance of mid-to-senior level foreign military personnel, as well as select
civilian personnel, in U.S. professional military courses at DOD institutions. While relatively
small in dollar terms, the IMET program aids more countries than any other aid account,
involving more than 100 countries every year.20
Delivery of Foreign Assistance
How and in what form assistance reaches an aid recipient can vary widely, depending on the type
of aid program, the objective of the assistance, and the agency responsible for providing the aid.
What Executive Branch Agencies Implement Foreign
Assistance Programs?
Federal agencies may implement foreign assistance programs using funds appropriated directly to
them or funds transferred to them from another agency. For example, significant funding
appropriated through State Department and Department of Agriculture accounts is implemented
by USAID, and most military aid funded through the State Department is implemented by DOD
(see Figure 2). The funding data in this section reflect the agency that implemented the aid, not
necessarily the agency to which Congress appropriated the funds originally.
Figure 2. Foreign Assistance Implementing Agencies, FY2019
(in millions of obligated U.S. dollars)

Source: Foreignassistance.gov and CRS calculations. See footnote 22.
Notes: USAID = U.S. Agency for International Development; DOD = Department of Defense; Treas. =
Department of the Treasury; MCC = Mil ennium Challenge Corporation; HHS = Department of Health and

19 For further information on peacekeeping operations, see CRS Report R45930, U.N. Peacekeeping Operations in
Africa
, by Luisa Blanchfield, Alexis Arieff, and Lauren Ploch Blanchard, and CRS In Focus IF10597, United Nations
Issues: U.S. Funding of U.N. Peacekeeping
, by Luisa Blanchfield.
20 State Department, SFOPS Congressional Budget Justification FY2022: Supplementary Tables, May 2021.
Congressional Research Service

11

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Human Services. “Other” agencies that implemented foreign assistance in FY2019 include the Department of
Energy, Department of Agriculture, Peace Corps, Department of the Interior, Department of the Army,
Department of the Air Force, Department of Labor, Inter-American Foundation, African Development
Foundation, Trade and Development Agency, Department of the Navy, and the Department of Justice, among
others. The Export-Import Bank and the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation are not reflected
in the figure because their receipts generally exceed their appropriations, resulting in a net gain in budget terms.
U.S. Agency for International Development
For 60 years, USAID has implemented the bulk of the U.S. bilateral development and
humanitarian assistance. It directly implements the Development Assistance, International
Disaster Assistance, and Transition Initiatives accounts, as well as a USAID-designated portion of
the Global Health Programs account. Jointly with the State Department, USAID co-manages ESF,
AEECA, and Democracy Fund programs, which frequently support development activities as a
means of supporting U.S. strategic interests.21 Based on historical averages, according to USAID,
the agency implements more than 90% of ESF, 70% of AEECA, 40% of the Democracy Fund,
and about 60% of the Global HIV/AIDS funding appropriated to the State Department. USAID
also implements all Food for Peace Act Title II food assistance funded through agriculture
appropriations.
The agency’s staff in 2019 totaled 9,688, of which about 67% were working overseas. USAID
staff do not typically implement programs directly, but rather plan and oversee the
implementation of hundreds of projects undertaken by thousands of private sector contractors,
consultants, and nongovernmental organizations.22
USAID obligated an estimated $21.2 billion to implement foreign assistance programs and
activities in FY2019.23
U.S. Department of Defense
DOD, through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, implements all SFOPS-funded military
assistance programs—FMF, IMET, and PKO. DOD also carries out an array of assistance
activities, funded through defense appropriations legislation, which typically involve training,
equipping, and other support to partner or coalition military operations. DOD uses the term
“security cooperation” to refer broadly to DOD-implemented activities with foreign security
establishments. While some of these activities fit the FAA definition of foreign assistance, not all
security cooperation activities do. These programs are primarily authorized by Title 10, U.S.C.
such as DOD’s main train and equip authority, Section 333 Building Partner Capacity.24 In
addition to programs codified under Title 10, DOD security cooperation includes temporary,
country-specific authorities that require annual renewal in annual defense authorization acts such
as the Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF) for Iraq and Syria, the Afghanistan Security
Forces Fund (ASFF), and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI). Other programs such
as CTR, authorized under Title 50, U.S.C., address bioweapons and nuclear nonproliferation in
eligible countries, among other activities.
In FY2019, DOD implemented an estimated $14.1 billion in foreign assistance programs.25

21 The State Department determines the distribution of funds from these accounts.
22 This total includes employees from the USAID Office of Inspector General, but does not include institutional support
contractors. USAID Agency Financial Report, FY2019.
23 See Foreignassistance.gov.
24 10 U.S.C. §§301-386.
25 Foreignassistance.gov.
Congressional Research Service

12

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

U.S. Department of State
The Department of State manages and co-manages a wide range of assistance programs. It is the
lead U.S. civilian agency on security and refugee related assistance, with sole responsibility for
administering the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) and
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR) accounts, and the two
Migration and Refugee accounts (MRA and ERMA). State is also home to the Office of the
Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC), which manages the State Department’s portion of Global
Health Programs funding in support of HIV/AIDS programs, though many of these funds are
transferred to and implemented by USAID, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. The State Department also channels much of the assistance it
manages to international organizations, including the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) and the Global Fund to Fight HIV, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund).
In conjunction with USAID, the State Department manages the Economic Support Fund (ESF),
AEECA assistance to the former communist states, and Democracy Fund accounts. For these
accounts, the State Department largely sets the overall policy and direction of funds, while
USAID implements many programs. In addition, the State Department, through its Bureau of
Political-Military Affairs, has policy authority over FMF, IMET, PKO, and, while it was active,
the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF), meaning it allocates countries’
assistance levels and determines the equipment that is permitted for transfer. DOD implements
these programs. Police training programs have traditionally been the responsibility of the
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) Office in the State Department, though DOD
also ran programs in Iraq and Afghanistan for several years.
State is also the organizational home to the Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources
(formerly the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance), which was created in 2006 to
coordinate U.S. foreign assistance programs. The office establishes standard program structures
and definitions, as well as performance indicators, and collects and reports data on State
Department and USAID aid programs.
The State Department implemented about $7.0 billion in foreign assistance funding in FY2019,
though it has policy authority over a much broader range of assistance funds.26
U.S. Department of the Treasury
The Department of the Treasury’s Under Secretary for International Affairs administers U.S.
contributions to, and participation in, the World Bank and other multilateral development
institutions under the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account. Presidentially
appointed U.S. executive directors at each of the banks represent the United States’ point of view.
Treasury also deals with foreign debt reduction issues and programs, including U.S. participation
in the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative and emergency financing from the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). The agency manages the distribution of funds and negotiates
program structure, but does not implement programs. Treasury, however, does directly implement
a bilateral technical assistance program offering temporary financial advisors to countries
implementing major economic reforms and combating terrorist finance activity.
In FY2019, the Department of the Treasury managed foreign assistance valued at about $1.6
billion.27

26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

13

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services implements a range of global health
programs through its various component institutions. As an implementing partner in the
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a large portion of HHS foreign
assistance activities are related to HIV prevention and treatment, including technical support and
preventing mother to child transmission of HIV/AIDS. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) participates in a broad range of global disease control activity, including rapid
outbreak response, global research and surveillance, information technology assistance, and field
epidemiology and laboratory training. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also conduct
international health research that is reported as assistance.
In FY2019, HHS institutions implemented $1.4 billion in foreign assistance activities.28
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Created in 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) provides large direct grants to a
few low- and lower-middle-income countries that have demonstrated a strong commitment to
effective governance relative to other developing countries. A significant feature of MCC grants
is that recipient countries formulate, propose, and implement mutually agreed five-year U.S.-
funded grants, known as compacts. Compacts in the 29 recipient countries selected to date have
emphasized infrastructure projects. The MCC is a U.S. government corporation, headed by a
chief executive officer who reports to a board of directors chaired by the Secretary of State. The
Corporation maintains a relatively small staff of about 300.
The MCC obligated about $646.5 million in FY2019.29
Other Agencies
A number of other government agencies play a role in implementing foreign aid programs.
 The Peace Corps, an autonomous agency with FY2019 obligations of $458.6
million,30 sends volunteers to 64 countries.31 Peace Corps volunteers work on a
wide range of educational, health, and community development projects.32
 The Trade and Development Agency (TDA), which obligated $30.3 million in
FY2019, funds project preparation assistance, such as feasibility studies, and
partnership building activities, such as trade missions, likely to generate U.S.
exports for overseas infrastructure and other projects.33
 The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), which became
operational in December 2019, provides loans, loan guarantees, political risk
insurance, equity investments, and technical assistance to enable private

28 Ibid.
29 Ibid. For more information on MCC, see CRS Report RL32427, Millennium Challenge Corporation: Overview and
Issues
, by Nick M. Brown.
30 Ibid.
31 The Peace Corps, Agency Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2021, Washington, DC.
32 For more information on these agencies, see CRS Report RS21168, The Peace Corps: Overview and Issues, by Nick
M. Brown.
33 USAID Explorer. For more information on TDA, see CRS In Focus IF10673, U.S. Trade and Development Agency
(TDA)
, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 19
Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

investment in developing countries.34 DFC credit activities generate substantial
returns and, with fees, often exceed outlays, requiring little to no appropriations
as a result.35
 The Export-Import (Ex-Im) Bank provides financing and insurance to facilitate
the export of U.S. goods and services when the private sector is unwilling or
unable to do so and/or to counter foreign export credit financing. Ex-Im Bank
receives an annual appropriation for administrative expenses, but its revenues
from interest and other fees charged for its support often exceed its appropriation,
creating a net gain to the Treasury.
 The Inter-American Foundation and the African Development Foundation
obligated $28.7 million and $22.5 million, respectively, in FY2019,36 in direct
grants to small-scale enterprises and grassroots self-help entities.
What Are the Different Forms in Which U.S. Assistance Is
Provided?
Most U.S. assistance is now provided as a
grant rather than a loan, so as not to increase
Figure 3. Assistance by Type, FY2019
the debt burden carried by many developing
Obligations
countries. However, the forms a grant may
take are diverse. The most common type of
U.S. development aid is project-based
assistance (77% in FY2019), in which aid is
channeled through an implementing partner,
most often a contractor, multilateral
organization, or nongovernmental
organization, to complete a specific project.
Aid is also provided in the form of core
contributions to international organizations
such as the United Nations, technical
assistance, and direct budget support (cash
transfer) to governments. Some assistance
funds are also spent on administrative costs
(see Figure 3). Within these categories, aid

may take many forms, as described below.
Source: Foreignassistance.gov and CRS calculations.
Expertise
Many assistance programs provide expert advice to government and private sector organizations.
For example, the Department of the Treasury, USAID, and U.S.-funded multilateral banks all
place specialists in host government ministries to make recommendations on policy reforms in a
wide variety of sectors. USAID has often placed experts in private sector business and civic

34 For more information on the BUILD Act and DFC, see CRS Report R45461, BUILD Act: Frequently Asked
Questions About the New U.S. International Development Finance Corporation
, by Shayerah Ilias Akhtar and Marian
L. Lawson, and CRS In Focus IF11436, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), by Shayerah
Ilias Akhtar and Nick M. Brown.
35 For more information, see CRS In Focus IF11436, U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), by
Shayerah I. Akhtar and Nick M. Brown.
36 ForeignAssistance.gov.
Congressional Research Service

15

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

organizations to help strengthen them in their formative years or while indigenous staff are being
trained. Such expert advice may come from U.S. nationals, but may also include country
nationals employed by USAID projects to offer policy options to that government or otherwise
coordinate project efforts.
Training
Knowledge and skill transfer is a significant part of most assistance programs. The International
Military Education and Training Program (IMET), for example, provides training to officers of
the armed forces of allied and friendly nations. Tens of thousands of citizens of aid recipient
countries receive technical training annually under USAID programs. Similarly, more than one-
quarter of Peace Corps volunteers are English, math, and science teachers. Other aid programs
provide law enforcement personnel with anti-narcotics or anti-terrorism training.
Grants
USAID, the Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation often provide
aid in the form of grants directly to local organizations to foster economic and social development
and to encourage civic engagement in their communities. Grants are sometimes provided to credit
institutions, such as village-level women’s savings groups, which in turn provide loans to
microentrepreneurs. Small grants may also address specific community needs. Recent IAF grants,
for example, have supported organizations that help resettle Salvadoran migrants deported from
the United States and youth programs in Central America aimed at gang prevention. Large grants
are often provided directly by USAID, but small-scale grants are most frequently administered
under an implementing partner contract.
In-Kind Goods
Assistance may be provided in the form of food commodities, weapons systems, or equipment
such as generators or computers. Food aid may be provided directly to meet humanitarian needs
or to encourage attendance at a maternal/child health care program. Technical assistance may
accompany goods provided, such as training for use of weapons supplied as military assistance.
Under development assistance, equipment and commodities provided are usually integrated with
other forms of aid to meet objectives in a particular social or economic sector. For instance,
textbooks have been provided in both Afghanistan and Iraq alongside a broader teacher training
and educational reform effort. Computers may be offered in conjunction with training and
expertise to fledgling microcredit institutions. Since PEPFAR was first authorized in 2004,
antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) provided to individuals living with HIV/AIDS have been a significant
component of global health assistance.
Economic Infrastructure
Although once a significant portion of U.S. assistance programs, direct construction of economic
infrastructure—roads, irrigation systems, electric power facilities, etc.—has been a relatively
small component of aid efforts since the 1970s. Because of the substantial expense of these
projects, they were to be found only in large bilateral assistance programs, such as that for Egypt
in the 1980s and 1990s, where the United States constructed major urban water and sanitation
systems. The aid programs implemented in support of post-U.S. invasion reconstruction in Iraq
and Afghanistan were an exception, supporting the building of schools, health clinics, roads,
power plants, and irrigation systems. In Iraq alone, more than $10 billion went to economic
infrastructure. The Millennium Challenge Corporation funds much of the direct construction of
Congressional Research Service

16

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

economic infrastructure supported by U.S. assistance, using a competitive selection process to
direct such programs toward well-governed countries in which these investments may be more
sustainable. MDBs also continue to support infrastructure projects in developing countries,
mostly by providing large-scale loans. With the growth of private direct investment in developing
countries, U.S. efforts have shifted toward facilitation of private investments in infrastructure
investments, including through the Power Africa initiative, the U.S. International Development
Finance Corporation, and the International Transaction Advisory Network, among others.
Direct Budget Support
Although it is the exception rather than the rule, some countries receive aid in the form of a cash
grant to the government. Dollars provided in this way support a government’s balance-of-
payments situation, enabling it to purchase more U.S. goods, service its debt, or devote more
domestic revenues to developmental or other purposes. Cash transfers have been made as a
reward to countries that have supported U.S. counterterrorism operations (Turkey and Jordan in
FY2004), to provide political and strategic support (both Egypt and Israel annually for decades
after the 1979 Camp David Peace Accord), and in exchange for undertaking difficult political and
economic reforms. In FY2019, the Government of Jordan was the only reported recipient of such
assistance.
How Much Assistance Is Provided as Loans and How Much as
Grants? What Are Some Types of Loans? Have Loans Been Repaid?
Why Is Repayment of Some Loans Forgiven?
Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions
under which most forms of assistance are provided, though Congress included provisions
encouraging the use of grants over loans in some instances, such as development assistance to the
least developed countries. In general, the financial condition of a country—its ability to meet
repayment obligations—has been an important criterion of the decision to provide a loan or grant.
Some programs, such as humanitarian and disaster relief programs, were designed from the
beginning to be entirely grant activities.
Between 1946 and 2018, the United States loaned $116.6 billion in economic and military aid to
foreign governments, and $11.2 billion of loan funds remained outstanding at the end of
FY2019.37
Loan/Grant Composition
During the past two decades, nearly all foreign aid—military as well as economic—has been
provided in grant form. While loans represented 32% of total military and economic assistance
between 1962 and 1988, this figure declined substantially beginning in the mid-1980s, until by
FY2001, loans represented less than 1% of total aid appropriations. The de-emphasis on loan
programs came largely in response to the debt problems of developing countries, some of which
were attributable to aid loans. Both Congress and the executive branch have generally taken the

37 U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants: Obligations and Loan Authorizations, July 1, 1945-September 30, 2019
(Greenbook), CONG-R-0105. For nearly three decades, Section 620q of the Foreign Assistance Act (the Brooke
amendment) has prohibited new assistance to the government of any country that falls more than one year past due in
servicing its debt obligations to the United States, though the President may waive application of this prohibition if he
determines it is in the national interest.
Congressional Research Service

17

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

view that foreign aid should not add to the already existing debt burden carried by these
countries. The Trump Administration sought to shift that approach to some degree, but Congress
continued its emphasis on grants.38
Development Finance
Although a small proportion of total current aid, U.S. government-issued financial products to
advance development, known broadly as “development finance,” have remained a component of
U.S. assistance efforts. Now largely consolidated in the DFC, such projects involve either directly
issued loans or loan guarantees, meaning the U.S. government agrees to pay a portion of the
amount owed in the case of a default on a loan. For instance, DFC may partially guarantee a
mortgage portfolio of a developing country bank, sharing risk with it in order to expand credit
access for poor mortgage holders.
The United States also guarantees sovereign loans of certain governments in order to improve the
terms or amounts of financing from international capital markets. Debt guarantees have been used
recently to assist Ukraine, Iraq, and Jordan. In these cases, assistance funds representing a
fraction of the guarantee amount are set aside to cover possible default.39 Previously, under the
Israeli Loan Guarantee Program, the United States guaranteed repayment of loans made by
commercial sources to support the costs of immigrants settling in Israel from other countries and
could issue guarantees to support economic recovery.40
Debt Forgiveness
The United States has also forgiven some debts owed by foreign governments and encouraged,
with mixed success, other foreign aid donors and international financial institutions to do
likewise. In some cases, the decision to forgive foreign aid debts has been based largely on
economic grounds as another means to support development efforts by heavily indebted, but
reform-minded, countries. The United States has been one of the strongest supporters of the
Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative
(MDRI). These initiatives, which began in the late 1990s, include participation of the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and other international financial institutions in a
comprehensive debt workout framework for the world’s poorest and most debt-strapped nations.41
USAID and the Treasury Department have also implemented “debt-for-nature” swaps, in which
foreign debt is purchased, sometimes at discounted rates, and restructured into local currency that
can be implemented as environmental conservation programs.42
The largest and most hotly debated debt forgiveness actions have been implemented for much
broader foreign policy reasons with a more strategic purpose. Examples include Poland, during its
transition from a communist system and centrally planned economy (1990—$2.46 billion);
Egypt, for making peace with Israel and helping maintain the Arab coalition during the Persian

38 The Trump Administration both proposed shifting FMF from primarily grants to include some lending, and sought to
expand development finance through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation while proposing cuts to
grant assistance accounts.
39 The assistance provided to guarantee the loan varies depending on the risk. For example, the Obama Administration
requested $275 million in ESF-OCO funds in FY2016 to support a $1 billion loan guarantee for Ukraine.
40 Israel has not drawn on any loan guarantees since FY2004.
41 For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RS21482, The Paris Club and International Debt Relief,
by Martin A. Weiss.
42 CRS Report RL31286, Debt-for-Nature Initiatives and the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA): Status and
Implementation
, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 24 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Gulf War (1990—$7 billion); and Jordan, after signing a peace accord with Israel (1994—$700
million). Similarly, the United States forgave about $4.1 billion in outstanding Saddam Hussein-
era Iraqi debt in November 2004 and helped negotiate an 80% reduction in Iraq’s debt to creditor
nations later that month.
Does the Private Sector Have a Role in Foreign Assistance?
Most development and humanitarian assistance activities are not directly implemented by U.S.
government personnel but by private sector entities, such as individual personal service
contractors, consulting firms, universities, private voluntary organizations (PVOs), or public
international organizations (PIOs). Generally speaking, U.S. government foreign service and civil
servants determine the direction and priorities of the aid program, allocate funds in accordance
with legislative requirements, ensure that appropriate projects are in place to meet aid objectives,
select implementers, and monitor the implementation of those projects for effectiveness and
financial accountability. Both USAID and the State Department have promoted the use of public-
private partnerships, in which private entities such as corporations and foundations contribute as
joint funders, not paid implementers, in situations where partners’ interests and U.S. objectives
coincide.43 As foreign direct investment in developing countries has increased significantly in
recent decades, far exceeding foreign assistance from governments in many countries, agencies
have sought partnerships and other means of channeling those investments in support of U.S.
priorities.
In addition to serving as implementing partners, the U.S. private sector also sometimes provides
goods and services for assistance programs. For example, a portion of U.S. international food aid
is sourced from U.S. farmers and then shipped overseas on privately-owned U.S. flag cargo ships.
FMF funding, as another example, primarily contracts with U.S. defense contractors. Most
USAID procurement is restricted to the United States, the recipient, and other developing
countries.44
Which Countries Receive U.S. Foreign Assistance?
In FY2019, the United States provided some form of bilateral foreign assistance to more than 180
countries.45 Aid is concentrated heavily in certain countries, but country allocations shift over
time due to changing priorities and interests of U.S. foreign policy. Table 2 identifies the top 15
recipients of U.S. foreign assistance for FY1999, FY2009, and FY2019, reflecting these shifts.

43 For more on the use of public-private partnerships in foreign assistance, see CRS Report R41880, Foreign
Assistance: Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs)
, by Marian L. Lawson.
44 22 C.F.R. § 228.
45 Generally, USAID and other agencies funnel development assistance, in various forms, to a country’s private sector,
nongovernmental organizations, local communities, individual entrepreneurs, and other entities. Assistance is provided
directly to the government of a country where the intention is to bring about policy reforms, improve governance, or
work with a sector in which the government is the predominant element, such as in health care where the Ministry of
Health would play a determinative role. Often, in cases where a government is believed to be taking action contrary to
U.S. interests, Congress has specified that assistance to that government be prohibited or limited, while not affecting
overall assistance to the country.
Congressional Research Service

19

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Table 2. Top Recipients of U.S. Foreign Assistance from All Sources,
FY1999, FY2009, and FY2019
(in millions of current U.S. dollars)
FY1999

FY2009

FY2019
Israel
3,030.4
Afghanistan
8,964.4
Afghanistan
4,893.4
Egypt
2,214.0
Iraq
5,694.4
Israel
3,308.5
Russia
1,601.8
Israel
2,423.3
Jordan
1,723.3
Jordan
381.9
Egypt
1,989.9
Egypt
1,467.0
Colombia
325.5
Pakistan
1,174.2
Iraq
959.3
Ukraine
287.8
Sudan
1,156.8
Ethiopia
922.8
Indonesia
256.7
West Bank and Gaza
1,040.3
Yemen
809.8
Peru
231.3
Ethiopia
865.1
Colombia
800.7
Bangladesh
229.7
Colombia
863.6
Nigeria
794.0
Bosnia and


Herzegovina
220.6
Jordan
828.3
Lebanon
791.0
Serbia and


Montenegro
190.2
Kenya
770.1
DRC
781.1
India
186.7
Georgia
621.9
Kenya
758.9
Dem. Rep. of Korea
176.5
South Africa
591.2
Uganda
753.9
Ethiopia
144.7
Russia
535.9
Pakistan
684.8
Bolivia
139.6
Burkina Faso
503.9
South Sudan
675.5
Source: Foreignassistance.gov.
Note: DRC = Democratic Republic of the Congo.
As shown in the table above, there are both similarities and sharp differences among country aid
recipients for the three periods. The most consistent thread connecting the top aid recipients over
the past two decades has been continuing U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East, with large
programs maintained for Israel and Egypt as well as for Iraq, following the 2003 invasion. Two
key countries for U.S. counterterrorism strategy, Afghanistan and Pakistan, rose to the top of the
aid recipient list in FY2002.
Since 2000, U.S. assistance has shifted considerably, as some poor or fragile regions have
prospered and others remain impoverished. In FY1999, one sub-Saharan African country
appeared among the top 15 aid recipients; in FY2019, there were six. Many are focus countries
under the PEPFAR initiative to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic; newer initiatives such as Power
Africa, Feed the Future, and Prosper Africa have also driven funds to that region. In FY1999, four
countries from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union made the list, as many from the
region had for much of the 1990s due to efforts to transform the former communist nations to
democratic societies and market-oriented economies. None of those countries appear in the
FY2019 list. In FY1999, three Latin American countries made the list; Colombia is the only
country from the region that remained on the list for FY2019.
On a regional basis, the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region received the largest share of
U.S. foreign assistance for several decades. Although economic aid to the region’s top two
recipients, Israel and Egypt, began to decline in the late 1990s, the dominant share of bilateral
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 25
Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

U.S. assistance consumed by the MENA region was maintained in the 2000s by the war in Iraq.
Its share continued to slip substantially in FY2019.
Figure 4. Regional Distribution of Assistance, FY1999, FY2009, and FY2019

Source: USAID Explorer and CRS calculations. Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Note: World = Unallocated by Country/Region.
U.S. strategic imperatives have also driven periodic growth and decline of aid. After September
11, 2001, South and Central Asia emerged as a significant target of U.S. assistance. The region
rose from a roughly 4% share 20 years ago to 23% in FY2009 before retreating to 14% in
FY2019, largely tracking U.S. national security priorities in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Similarly,
the share flowing to African nations increased from 9% in FY1999 to 20% in FY2009, and
reached 25% in FY2019, largely due to the HIV/AIDS initiative that funnels resources mostly to
African countries and to a range of other efforts to address the region’s development challenges.
Meanwhile, the share of aid to Europe/Eurasia, which greatly surpassed that of Africa in FY1999,
has declined significantly in the past decade, to about 4% in FY2019, with the graduation of
many East European aid recipients and the termination of programs in Russia. The share of aid
allocated to East Asia/Pacific has remained at a low level during the past two decades, while the
Western Hemisphere’s share has risen and fallen based on U.S. interest in Colombia and Central
American countries, and disasters such as the 2010 earthquake in Haiti (see Figure 4).
Foreign Aid Spending
How Large Is the U.S. Foreign Assistance Budget?
There are several methods commonly used for measuring the amount of federal spending on
foreign assistance. Amounts can be expressed in terms of budget authority (funds appropriated by
Congress), obligations (amounts contractually committed), and outlays or disbursements (money
actually spent). Assistance levels are also sometimes measured as a percentage of the total federal
budget, as a percentage of total discretionary budget authority (excluding mandatory and
entitlement programs), or as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP, for an indication
of the national wealth allocated to foreign aid). By nearly all of these measures, foreign aid
resources fell gradually on average over several decades from the historical high levels of the late
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 34 link to page 26 link to page 34 link to page 27
Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

1940s and early 1950s (see Appendix A). This downward trend was sporadically interrupted,
largely due to major foreign policy initiatives such as the Alliance for Progress for Latin America
beginning in 1961, the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s, the infusion of funds to implement
the Camp David Middle East Peace Accords in 1979, and an increase in military assistance to
Egypt, Turkey, Greece and others in the mid-1980s. The lowest point in U.S. foreign aid spending
since World War II came in FY1997, when foreign assistance obligations fell to about $20 billion
(in 2019 dollar terms).
While foreign aid consistently represented just over 1% of U.S. GDP in the decade following
World War II, it fell gradually to between 0.2% and 0.4% for most years over the past three
decades. Foreign assistance spending has comprised, on average, around 3% of discretionary
budget authority and just over 1% of total budget authority each year since FY1977, though the
percentages have sometimes varied considerably from year to year. Foreign aid dropped from 5%
of discretionary budget authority in FY1979 to 2.4% in FY2001, before rising sharply in
conjunction with U.S. activities in Afghanistan and Iraq starting in FY2003, as well as the launch
of a global HIV/AIDS response effort (see Figure 5; Appendix A).
Figure 5. Aid as a Percentage of the Federal Budget and GDP,
FY1976-FY2019

Sources: OMB Historic Budget Tables FY2021; Foreignassistance.gov; CRS calculations.
As previously discussed, since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, foreign aid funding has
been closely tied to U.S. counterterrorism strategy, particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Global health initiatives, the creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, and growth in
counter-narcotics activities have driven funding increases over the same period. The Budget
Control Act of 2011, and the drawdown of U.S. military forces in Iraq, and to some degree
Afghanistan, led to a notable dip in aid obligations in FY2013, but aid levels rose again in
FY2015 with efforts to address the crisis in Syria, counter ISIS activities, and provide for
humanitarian efforts. The use of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO, discussed below)
designation has enabled this growth. Figure 6 shows how trends in foreign aid funding in recent
decades track specific foreign policy events and presidential initiatives.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 28
Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Figure 6. Foreign Assistance Funding Trends, FY1976-FY2019
(in billions of constant FY2019 U.S. dollars)

Source: Foreignassistance.gov.
Notes: MCC = Mil ennium Challenge Corporation; PEPFAR = President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; GHI
= Global Health Initiative; BCA = Budget Control Act; Human. = humanitarian.
What Does Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Mean?
Prior to FY2012, the President typically submitted to Congress requests for additional funding as
needed (after initial annual budget requests), referred to as emergency supplementals. These
funding packages historically were approved to address emergency, war-related, or otherwise off-
cycle budget needs. The Obama Administration took a different approach in its FY2012
international affairs budget, distinguishing between enduring (also referred to as base, regular, or
ongoing), emergency supplemental, and Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, all in
the same request, and describing the OCO designated funds as short-term, temporary, war-related
funding for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The OCO designation had
previously been applied to war-related Department of Defense (DOD) costs but had not been used
outside that scope.
Funds designated as emergency or OCO are not subject to procedural limits on discretionary
spending in congressional budget resolutions, or the statutory discretionary spending limits
provided by the Budget Control Act of 2011 for FY2011-FY2021 (BCA, P.L. 112-25). As a result,
the OCO designation became a critical tool for compliance with the BCA spending caps.
Congress not only adopted the OCO designation in the FY2012 SFOPS appropriations
legislation, but expanded it to include funding for additional accounts and countries. Between
FY2012 and FY2018, Congress appropriated more OCO-designated funding than was requested
by the Administration; since then, Congress has appropriated OCO funds each year despite
Administration requests for no SFOPS OCO funds (see Figure 7).
Congressional Research Service

23


Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Figure 7. Overseas Contingency Operations, FY2012-FY2021
(in billions of current U.S. dollars)

Sources: SFOPS Congressional Budget Justifications; annual SFOPS appropriations.
As the use of OCO expanded, the Administration requested and Congress enacted fewer
emergency supplementals. However, there have been a handful of foreign assistance
supplementals since FY2012 to address unanticipated emergency situations. These include
supplementals for the Ebola response in West Africa in FY2015, the Zika response in FY2016,
and counter-ISIS activities in FY2017. Most recently, Congress enacted supplemental funds to
combat the COVID-19 pandemic, provide assistance to Sudan, and address humanitarian needs in
Afghanistan and for Afghan refugees.
The BCA expired at the end of FY2021, and the House-passed and Senate-introduced SFOPS
bills for FY2022 (H.R. 4373 and S. 3075, respectively) do not include OCO funds.46
How Much Foreign Assistance Is Spent on U.S. Goods
and Services?
Congress historically sought to enhance the domestic benefits of foreign aid by requiring that
most U.S. foreign aid be used to procure U.S. goods and services.47 The conditioning of aid on

46 For more information on foreign affairs OCO funding, see CRS In Focus IF10143, Foreign Affairs Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) Funding: Background and Current Status
, by Emily M. Morgenstern. For broader
OCO trends, including those related to DOD, see CRS Report R44519, Overseas Contingency Operations Funding:
Background and Status
, by Brendan W. McGarry and Emily M. Morgenstern.
47 The “Buy America” provision of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195, §604), originally required that aid
procurement be made within the United States unless a detailed determination of the need to procure elsewhere was
made by the President. In FY1993, Congress amended this section to allow for procurement in the United States, the
recipient country, or any developing country, but in developed countries only if necessary.
Congressional Research Service

24

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

the procurement of goods and services from the donor-country is sometimes called “tied aid,” and
while quite common for much of the history of modern foreign assistance, it has become
increasingly disfavored in the international community.48 Studies have shown that tying aid
increases the costs of goods and services by 15%-30% on average, and up to 40% for food aid,
reducing the purchasing power of aid flows.49 The United States joined other donor nations in
committing to reduce tied aid in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in March 2005, and
the portion of tied aid from all donors fell from 70% of total bilateral development assistance in
1985 to about 20% in 2018. However, an estimated 40% of U.S. bilateral development assistance
was tied in 2018, the highest percentage among major donors, perhaps reflecting the perception of
policymakers that maintaining public and political support for foreign aid programs requires
ensuring direct economic benefit to the United States.50 About 67% of U.S. foreign assistance
funds in FY2018 were obligated to U.S.-based entities.51
A considerable amount of U.S. foreign assistance funding remains in the United States, through
domestic procurement or the use of U.S. implementers, but the portion differs by program and is
hard to identify with any accuracy. For some types of aid, the legislative requirements or program
design make it relatively easy to determine how much aid is spent on U.S. goods or services,
while for others, this is more difficult to determine.
USAID. Most USAID funding is implemented through contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements with implementing partners. While many implementing
partner organizations are based in the United States and employ U.S. citizens,
there is little information available about what portion of the funds used for
program implementation are spent in the United States compared to the recipient
country. Procurement reform efforts initiated by USAID in 2010 have aimed to
accurately report and expand implementation by host country entities as a means
to enhance country ownership, local capacity, and sustainability, including by
expanding procurement preferences, previously restricted to the United States, to
also allow purchase from firms in most developing countries.
Food assistance commodities, until recently, were purchased wholly in the
United States, and generally required by law to be shipped by U.S. carriers,52
suggesting that the vast majority of food aid expenditures are made in the United
States. Starting in FY2009, Congress authorized a small portion of food
assistance to be purchased locally and regionally to meet urgent food needs more
quickly. Successive Administrations and several Members of Congress have
proposed greater flexibility in the food aid program, potentially increasing aid
efficiency but reducing the portion of funds flowing to U.S. farmers and shippers.
To date, these proposals have not been enacted.53

48 Overseas Development Institute, The Developmental Effectiveness of Untied Aid, available at http://oecd.org/dac/
evaluation/dcdndep/41537529.pdf.
49 Ibid.
50 Data available at http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/
statisticsonresourceflowstodevelopingcountries.htm, Table 23.
51 USAID Explorer. Entities include government agencies, nongovernmental and faith-based organizations, enterprises,
and universities.
52 The Cargo Preference Act, P.L. 83-644, August 26, 1954.
53 For more information on food aid programs and authorities, see CRS Report R45422, U.S. International Food
Assistance: An Overview
, by Alyssa R. Casey.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 31 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Foreign Military Financing, with the exception of certain assistance allocated to
Israel, is used exclusively to procure U.S. military equipment and training.54
 The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) bases its procurement
regulations on those established by the World Bank, which calls for an open and
competitive process, with no preference given to donor country suppliers.
Between FY2011 and FY2020, the MCC awarded roughly 10% of the value of
partner country contracts to U.S. firms.
Multilateral development aid is mixed with funds from other nations and the
bulk of the programs are financed with borrowed funds rather than direct
government contributions. Information on the U.S. share of procurement
financed by MDBs is not publicly unavailable.
In addition to the direct benefits derived from aid dollars used for American goods and services,
many argue that the foreign aid program brings significant indirect financial benefits to the
United States. For example, analysts maintain that provision of U.S. military equipment and food
commodities helps to develop future, strictly commercial, markets for those products. More
broadly, as countries develop economically, they are in a position to purchase more goods from
abroad and the United States benefits as a trade partner. Since an increasing majority of global
consumers are outside of the United States, some business leaders assert that establishing strong
economic and trade ties in the developing world, using foreign assistance as a tool, is key to U.S.
economic and job growth.55
How Does the United States Rank as a Donor of Foreign Aid?
Since World War II, with the exception of several years between 1989 and 2001, during which
Japan ranked first among aid donors, the United States has led developed countries in net
disbursements of economic aid, or “Official Development Assistance (ODA)” as defined by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) Development Assistance
Committee (DAC).56 In 2019, the most recent year for which comprehensive data are available,
the United States disbursed $32.98 billion in ODA, or about 22.5% of the $146.52 billion in total
net ODA disbursements by all donors that year, as reported to the OECD, ranking first among
donors (see Figure 8). While the top five donors have not varied for more than a decade, there
have been shifts lower down the rankings, with some previous aid recipients becoming donors.
For example, Poland, Ireland, and Korea, each substantial recipients of U.S. aid in the past, have
become prominent ODA donors in recent years.57

54 For the research, development and procurement of advanced weapons systems, not less than $805.3 million of aid to
Israel in FY2021 could be used for offshore procurement (about 13% of total Foreign Military Finance for that year).
55 See, for example, “Foreign Assistance Promotes U.S. Economic Prosperity,” U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, at
https://www.usglc.org/resources/foreign-assistance-economic-prosperity-key-facts/.
56 The OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms defines ODA as “flows of official financing administered with the
promotion of economic development and welfare of developing countries as the main objective, and which are
concessional in character with a grant element of at least 25%. By convention, ODA flows comprise contributions of
donor government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries and to multilateral institutions.” ODA does not
include military assistance or aid to developed countries, such as Israel and Russia.
57 OECD data are available at http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/
statisticsonresourceflowstodevelopingcountries.htm. Each country’s contribution exceeded 0.1% of GNI in FY2017,
the last year for which such data are provided.
Congressional Research Service

26


Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Figure 8. Top 15 Bilateral Donors of Official Development Assistance, 2019
(in billions of U.S. dollars)

Source: OECD/DAC, data available at http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/
development-finance-data/statisticsonresourceflowstodevelopingcountries.htm.
Although it leads in dollar amounts of aid flows to developing countries, the United States often
ranks low when aid is calculated as a percentage of gross national income (GNI).58 This
calculation is often cited in the context of international donor forums, as the U.N. General
Assembly set a target for donors of 0.7% of GNI in 1970, which also became an aim of the 2000
U.N. Millennium Development Goals. In 2019, the United States ranked at the bottom among
long-standing donors in terms of aid as a portion of GNI, at 0.15%. Turkey, Luxembourg,
Norway, and Sweden ranked first among donors, each at about 1% of GNI.
China is not an OECD member and does not regularly report ODA disbursements. Nevertheless,
the OECD estimates that China’s international development co-operation reached $4.8 billion in
2019, up from $4.5 billion in 2018, including $1.6 billion in multilateral assistance.59 While
estimated Chinese ODA is still relatively small compared to that of major donor countries,
policymakers are paying increasing attention to growing Chinese investments and financing in
developing countries that do not meet the ODA definition. China has touted its “Belt and Road”
Initiative as an effort to boost economic development and connectivity from China across regions
to create “strategic propellers” for its own development.60 China has provided little official

58 Gross National Income (GNI) comprises GDP together with income received from other countries (notably interest
and dividends), less similar payments made to other countries.
59 From “Other official providers not reporting to the OECD” report on the OECD website at https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/sites/18b00a44-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/5e331623-en&_csp_=
b14d4f60505d057b456dd1730d8fcea3&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=chapter#section-d1e19813. See also CRS
In Focus IF11735, China’s “One Belt, One Road” Initiative: Economic Issues, by Karen M. Sutter, Andres B.
Schwarzenberg, and Michael D. Sutherland.
60 National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Ministry of Commerce of
the People’s Republic of China (PRC), “Vision and Actions on Jointly Building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-
Century Maritime Silk Road,” First Edition, March 2015, http://en.ndrc.gov.cn/newsrelease/201503/
t20150330_669367.html.
Congressional Research Service

27

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

aggregate information on the initiative, including on the number of projects, the amounts and
terms of financing, and metrics for success, but some entities have taken efforts to estimate such
data themselves.61
Congress and Foreign Assistance
What Congressional Committees Oversee Foreign Aid Programs?
Numerous congressional authorizing committees and appropriations subcommittees maintain
responsibility for U.S. foreign assistance. Several committees have responsibility for authorizing
legislation establishing programs and policy and for conducting oversight of foreign aid
programs. In the Senate, the Committee on Foreign Relations, and in the House, the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, have primary jurisdiction over bilateral development assistance, strategic and
other economic security assistance, military assistance, and international organizations.
Responsibility over food aid, which primarily lies with the Agriculture Committees in both
bodies, is periodically shared with the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations
Committees. U.S. contributions to multilateral development banks are within the jurisdiction of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Financial Services Committee. Aid
programs funded by DOD, such as Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and the
military aid programs in Afghanistan and Ukraine, generally come under the jurisdiction of the
Armed Services Committees. Some global health assistance, such as research and other activities
done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, may fall under the jurisdiction of the
House Energy and Commerce and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP)
committees.
Most foreign aid appropriations fall under the jurisdiction of the SFOPS Subcommittees, with
food assistance appropriated by the Agriculture Subcommittees. As noted earlier, however, certain
military, global health, and other activities that have been reported as foreign aid have been
appropriated through other subcommittees in recent years, including the Defense and the Labor,
Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies subcommittees. For current
information on SFOPS Appropriations legislation, see CRS Report R46935, Department of State,
Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: FY2022 Budget and Appropriations
, by Cory R.
Gill, Marian L. Lawson, and Emily M. Morgenstern.
What Are the Major Foreign Aid Legislative Vehicles?
The most significant permanent foreign aid authorization laws include
 the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, covering most bilateral
economic and security assistance programs (P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. 2151);
 the Arms Export Control Act (1976), authorizing military sales and financing
(P.L. 90-629; 22 U.S.C. 2751);

61 See, for example, Boston University, “Global China Initiative,” https://www.bu.edu/gdp/research/gci/; Andrew
Chatzky and James McBride, “China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative,” Council on Foreign Relations, at
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative; AidData, AidData’s Global Chinese
Development Finance Dataset, Version 2.0, https://www.aiddata.org/data/aiddatas-global-chinese-development-
finance-dataset-version-2-0.
Congressional Research Service

28

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

 the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (P.L. 480),
covering food aid (P.L. 83-480; 7 U.S.C. 1691); and
 the Bretton Woods Agreement Act (1945), authorizing U.S. participation in
multilateral development banks (P.L. 79-171; 22 U.S.C. 286).62
In the past, Congress usually scheduled debates every two years on omnibus foreign aid
legislation that amended these permanent authorization measures. Congress has not enacted into
law a comprehensive foreign assistance authorization measure since 1985, although foreign aid
authorizing bills have passed the House or Senate, or both, on numerous occasions. Foreign aid
bills have frequently stalled at some point in the debate because of controversial issues, a tight
legislative calendar, or executive-legislative foreign policy disputes.63 In contrast, DOD
assistance is authorized in annual National Defense Authorization legislation.
In lieu of approving comprehensive foreign assistance authorization bills on a regular basis,
Congress has on occasion authorized major foreign assistance initiatives for specific regions,
countries, or aid sectors in stand-alone legislation or within an appropriation bill, often involving
amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to authorize a new initiative. Among these are
the following:
 the SEED Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-179; 22 U.S.C. 5401);
 the FREEDOM Support Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-511; 22 U.S.C. 5801);
 the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act
of 2003 (P.L. 108-25; 22 U.S.C. 7601);
 the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against
HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-
293);
 the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Division D, Title VI of P.L. 108-199);
 the Enhanced Partnership With Pakistan Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-73; 22 U.S.C.
8401);
 the Global Food Security Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-195; 22 U.S.C. 9306); and
 the Better Utilizing Results Leading to Development Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-254).
In the absence of regular enactment of foreign aid authorization bills, appropriation measures
considered annually within the SFOPS spending bill have assumed greater significance for
Congress in influencing U.S. foreign aid policy. Not only do appropriations bills set spending
levels each year for nearly every foreign assistance account, SFOPS appropriations also
incorporate new policy initiatives that would otherwise be debated and enacted as part of
authorizing legislation.

62 Separate permanent authorizations exist for other specific foreign aid programs such as the Peace Corps, the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Inter-American Foundation, and the African Development Foundation.
63 A few foreign aid programs that are authorized in other legislation have received more regular legislative review.
Authorizing legislation for voluntary contributions to international organizations and refugee programs, for example,
are usually contained in omnibus Foreign Relations Authorization measures that also address State Department and
public diplomacy issues. Food aid and amendments to the Food for Peace Act (P.L.480) are usually considered in the
omnibus “farm bill” that Congress reauthorizes every five years. The most recent farm bill was signed into law as P.L.
115-334 on December 20, 2018.
Congressional Research Service

29

link to page 36 link to page 36 link to page 36 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Appendix A. Data Table
Table A-1. Foreign Aid Funding Trends (Obligations)
As %
As % of
Fiscal
Constant 2019
of
As % of total
discretionary
Year
Current U.S. $
U.S. $
GDP
budget authoritya
budget authoritya
1946
3,075,702,000
33,099,851,370
1.3%


1947
6,708,001,000
65,089,024,366
2.8%


1948
3,179,504,000
28,177,070,122
1.2%


1949
8,300,704,000
71,150,699,078
3.0%


1950
5,971,296,000
51,895,822,882
2.1%


1951
7,612,560,000
62,810,601,440
2.3%


1952
6,813,953,000
54,040,702,008
1.9%


1953
4,979,870,000
38,783,668,999
1.3%


1954
4,767,778,000
36,699,816,125
1.2%


1955
4,097,382,000
31,303,775,797
1.0%


1956
4,847,691,000
36,104,061,584
1.1%


1957
4,871,415,000
34,983,354,460
1.1%


1958
4,014,661,000
27,990,624,675
0.8%


1959
5,074,241,000
34,838,165,027
1.0%


1960
5,218,274,000
35,330,950,867
1.0%


1961
5,480,911,000
36,624,079,103
1.0%


1962
6,532,295,000
43,213,052,667
1.1%


1963
6,384,723,000
41,745,694,662
1.0%


1964
5,265,148,000
33,990,731,586
0.8%


1965
5,420,680,000
34,402,351,746
0.8%


1966
6,904,358,000
42,898,569,108
0.9%


1967
6,339,162,000
38,225,316,812
0.8%


1968
6,757,250,000
39,374,110,636
0.8%


1969
6,639,256,000
36,999,540,622
0.7%


1970
6,513,214,000
34,453,247,727
0.6%


1971
7,792,876,000
39,229,491,286
0.7%


1972
8,986,908,000
43,190,926,227
0.7%


1973
9,428,685,000
43,421,372,425
0.7%


1974
8,479,202,000
36,451,493,025
0.6%


1975
6,886,787,000
26,836,038,330
0.4%


1976b
9,609,495,000
34,730,230,239
0.4%
1.9%
4.0%
1977
7,756,101,000
26,351,997,532
0.4%
1.7%
3.1%
1978
8,999,414,000
28,646,309,035
0.4%
1.8%
3.5%
Congressional Research Service

30

link to page 36 link to page 36 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

As %
As % of
Fiscal
Constant 2019
of
As % of total
discretionary
Year
Current U.S. $
U.S. $
GDP
budget authoritya
budget authoritya
1979
13,837,318,000
40,758,113,729
0.5%
2.5%
5.0%
1980
9,681,780,000
26,230,136,798
0.3%
1.4%
3.1%
1981
10,517,411,000
25,944,023,720
0.3%
1.4%
3.1%
1982
12,166,665,000
28,061,180,178
0.4%
1.5%
3.4%
1983
13,836,455,000
30,576,689,508
0.4%
1.6%
3.6%
1984
14,864,489,000
31,714,293,921
0.4%
1.6%
3.5%
1985
18,106,876,000
37,383,867,730
0.4%
1.8%
4.0%
1986
15,815,716,000
31,938,147,269
0.3%
1.6%
3.6%
1987
13,872,898,000
27,399,826,282
0.3%
1.3%
3.1%
1988
13,963,153,000
26,714,804,123
0.3%
1.3%
3.1%
1989
14,443,414,000
26,558,311,624
0.3%
1.2%
3.1%
1990
16,002,892,763
28,386,203,806
0.3%
1.2%
3.2%
1991
16,959,737,549
29,048,006,169
0.3%
1.2%
3.1%
1992
15,725,968,425
26,278,490,491
0.2%
1.1%
3.0%
1993
16,549,513,930
27,020,301,072
0.2%
1.1%
3.2%
1994
16,202,682,387
25,890,219,669
0.2%
1.1%
3.2%
1995
15,555,497,616
24,337,385,401
0.2%
1.0%
3.1%
1996
14,457,039,252
22,201,811,164
0.2%
0.9%
2.9%
1997
13,909,513,423
20,988,378,927
0.2%
0.8%
2.7%
1998
14,922,848,713
22,239,909,449
0.2%
0.9%
2.8%
1999
18,323,182,974
26,960,946,715
0.2%
1.0%
3.1%
2000
17,111,919,619
24,671,877,844
0.2%
0.9%
2.9%
2001
16,029,347,098
22,578,411,366
0.2%
0.8%
2.4%
2002
19,068,690,900
26,435,712,033
0.2%
0.9%
2.6%
2003
29,463,736,976
40,114,913,392
0.3%
1.3%
3.5%
2004
32,576,160,434
43,314,199,501
0.3%
1.4%
3.6%
2005
35,460,524,384
45,753,677,744
0.3%
1.4%
3.6%
2006
37,254,519,368
46,577,468,252
0.3%
1.3%
3.7%
2007
39,726,329,764
48,350,898,537
0.3%
1.4%
3.7%
2008
46,744,551,536
55,740,560,339
0.3%
1.4%
4.0%
2009
46,640,784,747
54,981,368,596
0.3%
1.1%
3.1%
2010
48,356,761,555
56,518,409,447
0.3%
1.4%
3.8%
2011
49,144,626,860
56,315,515,507
0.3%
1.4%
4.0%
2012
50,501,695,641
56,794,206,454
0.3%
1.4%
4.2%
2013
46,064,921,577
50,868,627,072
0.3%
1.3%
4.0%
2014
43,948,624,773
47,615,243,264
0.3%
1.2%
3.9%
Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 36 link to page 36 Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

As %
As % of
Fiscal
Constant 2019
of
As % of total
discretionary
Year
Current U.S. $
U.S. $
GDP
budget authoritya
budget authoritya
2015
49,951,706,109
53,500,655,202
0.3%
1.3%
4.5%
2016
49,472,834,845
52,522,561,183
0.3%
1.2%
4.2%
2017
48,120,378,957
50,195,879,533
0.2%
1.2%
3.9%
2018
47,973,217,559
48,903,807,469
0.2%
1.1%
3.4%
2019
48,181,426,929
48,181,426,929
0.2%
1.0%
3.5%
Sources: Foreignassistance.gov; Office of Management and Budget Historic Budget Tables, FY2022; CRS
calculations.
Notes: Budget authority data by function are not available prior to FY1976.
a. Budget authority data is from the historic budget tables included in the President’s annual budget
submission, and is only available back to FY1976.
b. FY1976 includes both regular FY1976 and transition quarter (TQ) funding, and the GDP calculation is based
on the average FY1976 and TQ GDP.
Congressional Research Service

32

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

Appendix B. Common Foreign Assistance
Abbreviations

AEECA
Assistance to Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CERP
Commanders Emergency Response Program
DA
Development Assistance
DAC
Development Assistance Committee of the OECD
DFC
U.S. International Development Finance Corporation
DOD
Department of Defense
ERMA
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance
ESF
Economic Support Fund
FAA
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
FFPA
Food for Peace Act (also may be referred to as P.L. 480)
FMF
Foreign Military Financing
FSA
FREEDOM (Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies and Open Markets)
Support Act of 1992
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GNI
Gross National Income
HHS
Department of Health and Human Services
HIPC
Heavily Indebted Poor Country
IBRD
World Bank, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
IDA
World Bank, International Development Association
IDA
International Disaster Assistance
IMET
International Military Education and Training
IMF
International Monetary Fund
INCLE
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement
INL
Department of State, Office of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
IO&P
International Organizations and Programs
MCC
Mil ennium Challenge Corporation
MDBs
Multilateral Development Banks
MDRI
Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative
MRA
Migration and Refugee Assistance
NADR
Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining, and Related programs
NED
National Endowment for Democracy
NGO
Nongovernmental Organization
OCO
Overseas Contingency Operations
ODA
Official Development Assistance
Congressional Research Service

33

Foreign Assistance: An Introduction to U.S. Programs and Policy

OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
OFDA
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance
OGAC
Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator
OHDACA
DOD’s Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster and Civic Assistance account
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OPIC
Overseas Private Investment Corporation
OTI
Office of Transition Initiatives
PEPFAR
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
PKO
Peacekeeping Operations
PVO
Private Voluntary Organization
SEED
Support for East European Democracy Act of 1989
TDA
U.S. Trade and Development Agency
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNICEF
United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development




Author Information

Emily M. Morgenstern
Nick M. Brown
Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign Policy
Analyst in Foreign Assistance and Foreign Policy



Acknowledgments
This report was originally coauthored by retired CRS Specialist in Foreign Policy Curt Tarnoff.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R40213 · VERSION 31 · UPDATED
34