When presented the broad principle of giving foreign aid to the needy, an overwhelming majority of Americans embrace it. A September 1997 Pew poll found that 86% favored giving foreign aid for "food and medical assistance to people in needy countries," and 76% favored "aid that helps needy countries develop their economies."

Only a tiny minority say they want to eliminate foreign aid. In PIPA’s January 1995 poll, only 8% said they wanted to eliminate foreign aid entirely, while 88% rejected this possibility. In a December 1995 Washington Post poll, when asked "What percentage of the federal budget do you think should be spent on foreign aid?" only 11% said "none."

The strongest evidence supporting the view that the majority opposes foreign aid in principle can be found in poll questions that ask respondents to prioritize domestic spending and foreign aid. In these cases foreign aid is generally given a lower priority. In PIPA’s 1995 poll, 86% agreed that "Taking care of problems at home is more important than giving aid to foreign countries."

However, responses to these questions are apparently an indication of how strongly respondents feel about the importance of addressing problems at home, not an indication that respondents want to withhold all foreign aid until all domestic problems are solved. As mentioned above, very few Americans actually want to eliminate foreign aid. Even when spending on foreign aid was directly juxtaposed with domestic spending in the 1995 PIPA poll, only 35% agreed that: "Until we have resolved our problems at home, we should not give a penny of aid to other countries." And, apparently, most of these respondents were really not unequivocal: when asked what percentage of the federal budget should go to foreign aid, just 7% of the total sample said "none." Also, in the September 1996 PIPA poll, only 41% of respondents found merit in the argument that: "We should not give foreign aid to other countries. We need that money to solve problems here at home."

When asked to distribute resources, as opposed to prioritizing their possible uses, respondents often distribute more to foreign aid than is currently allocated. For example, as will be discussed below, when respondents are asked how much of the federal budget should go to foreign aid, they suggest a portion that is substantially greater than the actual amount.

Another example is the response to the question of how much the US should spend on the poor abroad as compared to the poor at home. In focus groups, participants are sometimes troubled by this question and often speak of the need to take care of the poor at home before worrying about people abroad. As one New Jersey man explained, "You are spending money when it could be spent right here to make the situation better....And this is tantamount to taking food out of your house and feeding another family, and your family’s hungry."

However, when respondents are asked to distribute resources, they do assign some resources to the poor abroad. PIPA’s June 1996 poll asked respondents to specify how much of their tax money that goes to the poor should go to the poor at home and how much to the poor abroad. The median respondent proposed that 80% should go to the poor at home and 20% should go to the poor abroad. This is actually much more generous to those abroad than the actual ratio—currently the US allots 97% to the poor at home and 3% to the poor abroad.

Back to top

Other Related Reports: 
1) What are the sources of support for Foreign Aid?
2) Do Americans want to cut aid spending?
3) What reservations do Americans have about the US foreign aid program?