When the U.S. dismantles its foreign aid agency, and peer-reviewed studies project 9 to 14 million additional deaths globally by 2030, what do religious traditions and constitutional principles say about America's obligations to people beyond its borders?
Religious traditions converge with unusual unanimity: the obligation to feed the hungry and heal the sick extends across borders, and the foreseeable consequences of withdrawing aid are morally attributable to those who withdraw it. The Constitution gives Congress the power to fund foreign aid; it does not give the executive the power to dissolve agencies Congress created or refuse to spend funds Congress appropriated. The Lancet's projection of 9.4 million additional deaths by 2030 is not a partisan figure; it is a peer-reviewed estimate based on documented program closures. Whether one supports robust foreign aid or believes it should be substantially reformed, the scale of the current withdrawal, the speed of its implementation, and the unilateral nature of its execution all raise both moral and constitutional questions that deserve to be addressed on their own terms.
Religious perspectives
Religious traditions are unusually unified on the obligation to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and protect the vulnerable — and they extend that obligation across borders.
Christianity: Jesus's most direct statement of moral criteria (Matthew 25:31-46) lists specific actions: feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, visiting the imprisoned. The criteria are not conditioned on nationality. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) was Jesus's direct answer to "Who is my neighbor?" — and his answer was a foreigner from a despised group. The Christian tradition has been clear for two thousand years: the obligation extends across borders. The early church's missionary movement, the medieval church's hospitals (the first hospital systems in human history), the modern Catholic and Protestant aid networks all derive from this teaching.
Judaism: The Torah's commands to leave the corners of fields for the poor (Leviticus 19:9-10) and to provide for the vulnerable include the stranger — "for you were strangers in the land of Egypt." Maimonides taught that the highest form of tzedakah is enabling people to become self-sufficient, which is precisely what international development aid is designed to do.
Islam: Zakat (mandatory charitable giving — one of the Five Pillars) is conventionally extended to non-Muslims in need. The Quran explicitly states "Allah does not forbid you from being righteous and just toward those who have not fought you over your faith or driven you out of your homes" (60:8). The Islamic tradition of waqf (charitable endowments) historically funded hospitals, schools, and infrastructure across the Islamic world without regard to recipients' religion or nationality.
Catholic Social Teaching: The "preferential option for the poor" — articulated by Pope John Paul II and consistently reaffirmed by every pope since — holds that policies should be evaluated by their impact on the most vulnerable. Pope Francis explicitly addressed foreign aid cuts in his February 2025 letter to U.S. bishops, expressing concern about the "major crisis" of withdrawn American humanitarian commitment.
Buddhism: The Buddhist concept of karuna (compassion) is universal — it does not distinguish between sentient beings based on national origin. Emperor Ashoka's edicts established hospitals throughout his empire that served foreigners and locals alike.
The sin of omission: James 4:17 — "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." Religious traditions are precise about this: the moral weight of failing to act is not lighter than the weight of actively causing harm, when the failure is willful and the harm is foreseeable. Projected deaths in the millions, foreseeable in advance, fall squarely within this category of moral concern.
The honest counterweight: Religious traditions also affirm the legitimacy of national obligations, prudent use of resources, and the principle that effective aid is better than ineffective aid. Some critiques of foreign aid programs raise legitimate concerns about waste, corruption, and dependency. These concerns are real and deserve engagement. But they do not justify wholesale withdrawal at a scale that produces millions of additional deaths — that is a separate moral calculation, and one religious traditions answer with unusual unanimity.
Constitutional & legal framework
The dismantling of USAID raises distinct constitutional questions about executive power, congressional authority over spending, and the dissolution of agencies Congress created.
The timeline:
- January 20, 2025: Executive order issuing a 90-day "stop-work" pause on virtually all U.S. foreign aid spending.
- February-June 2025: USAID staff placed on leave; programs canceled at scale; offices closed.
- July 1, 2025: USAID effectively ceased to exist as an independent agency. 83% of programs had been canceled. Remaining functions moved into the State Department.
- July 4, 2025: Congressional rescission of $9 billion in previously appropriated foreign aid funding signed into law.
Documented impacts (representative):
- The Lancet (February 2026): Peer-reviewed projection of at least 9.4 million additional global deaths by 2030 if current funding trends continue.
- UCLA/researchers (July 2025): Projected up to 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million children under 5.
- Documented 2025 effects: 361% increase in cholera deaths in DRC; closure of HIV clinics in South Africa; termination of malaria, malnutrition, and tuberculosis programs across multiple African and Asian countries.
- Center for Global Development: Estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 already-occurring excess deaths in 2025 attributable to the cuts.
The constitutional questions:
1. USAID's statutory creation: USAID was created by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and reorganized as an independent agency by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998. Its statutory framework places it within the executive branch but with specific congressional authorities and protections. Whether the executive may effectively dissolve a statutorily created agency through executive order — rather than seek congressional repeal of its enabling statute — is the central legal question.
2. Impoundment Control Act (1974): Congress passed this law specifically to prevent presidents from refusing to spend appropriated funds. Train v. City of New York (1975) confirmed that the executive cannot generally refuse to spend congressionally appropriated funds. The 2025 stop-work order and program cancellations test whether this principle still binds the executive branch.
3. Appointments and removal: USAID's Administrator is a Senate-confirmed position. The functional dissolution of the agency without Senate involvement raises questions about whether congressionally established offices can be effectively eliminated through reorganization alone.
4. Congressional rescission (July 2025): The $9 billion rescission package was, properly, enacted by Congress through statute. This portion of the cuts is constitutionally unproblematic, even if substantively contested. But it represents a small fraction of the overall reduction; most of the dismantling occurred before any congressional authorization.
Foreign aid is constitutional: The Constitution gives Congress broad spending power "to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare" (Article I, §8). Congressional power to fund foreign aid has been unquestioned since the Marshall Plan. The question is not whether foreign aid is constitutionally permissible (it clearly is); it is whether the executive can unilaterally undo it.
The "soft power" question: Multiple Republican and Democratic presidents have argued that foreign aid serves U.S. interests by building alliances, preventing crises, and creating goodwill. President George W. Bush's PEPFAR program (which addressed HIV/AIDS in Africa) is widely credited with saving approximately 25 million lives — a humanitarian achievement that also strengthened U.S. relationships across the continent. The strategic logic of foreign aid has long been bipartisan. The current break with that consensus is itself a significant policy departure, separate from the constitutional questions.
See: Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 → | Impoundment Control Act → | Train v. City of New York →
Sources cited:BibleTorahBuddhismConstitutionSupreme Court