Congress passes $50 billion foreign aid bill, despite Trump’s cuts in 2025

Foreign aid spending is back in the U.S. government’s budget, after a year in which the Trump administration cut billions of dollars to global health and humanitarian assistance.

On Tuesday evening, President Trump signed the spending bill that would fund much of the government through September 30.

In that legislation, Congress has allocated $50 billion for foreign aid in 2026 — a 16% cut from 2025. Still, it’s a lot more money than the administration had signaled it wants to spend on foreign aid in its proposed budget.

The foreign aid package includes funding for a variety of issues, such as military aid to Egypt, Israel and Taiwan. However, it also includes money for initiatives aimed at supporting democracy, scholarship programs, U.S. embassy operations and health and humanitarian programs around the world.

Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that the bill advances the priorities of the American people. “This fiscally responsible package would realign U.S. foreign assistance and make America safer and stronger on the world stage.”

Aid groups also welcomed the package, even as they noted the reduction in funding for humanitarian assistance compared to previous years.

“Strong, transparent and effective assistance helps to save lives, prevent conflict and displacement, and creates the conditions for children and families to build safer, healthier futures,” said Christy Gleason, Chief Policy Officer for Save the Children, in a statement.

In 2025, the Trump administration dismantled much of America’s foreign aid systems, including shutting down the 64-year-old United States Agency for International Development, and sent back billions of dollars that Congress had earmarked for foreign aid in 2025. Those moves were largely approved by a Republican-led congress.

President Trump and other senior administration officials accused the agency of being rife with waste and fraud and a bastion of the far left. But this bill appears to signal a change of heart in Congress, according to Jonathan Katz, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a USAID official during the Obama administration and part of Trump’s first term.

“The surprising factor is that you see Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, saying ‘we want to fund foreign assistance,’ from global health to food security to even democracy support, which has been much maligned by the Trump administration,” he says.

Katz says there’s been concern from both sides of the aisle over how the reduction in funding last year impacted global health and humanitarian aid around the world. Many people lost access to clinics and medicine and food. There’s also the fear that a reduction in American aid could lead to the U.S. losing its soft power influence around the world and give rivals — like China — an opportunity to fill the gap, he says.

Some Republicans nodded to those concerns as they explained the goals of the foreign aid funding.

“We counter our foes and stand with our friends. And we reinforce democracy and human rights efforts. Focused security and economic investments keep Americans safe and maintain our global edge,” wrote Tom Cole, R-Okla., in a statement issued when the bill first came out.

“I think there’s a bit of buyer’s remorse when it comes to U.S. engagement globally, meaning the soft power withdrawal of the United States that President Trump’s policies have been sort of leading to,” Katz says.

But others in the foreign aid community wanted to see a Congress that’s more aligned with the administration’s new model for foreign aid. The State Department’s new America First Global Health Strategy focuses on making one-on-one deals with individual countries, investing in their healthcare systems and requiring those governments to chip in, too, as well as create opportunities for American businesses.

Max Primorac, an analyst with the Heritage Foundation who previously held senior roles at USAID, says Congress has allocated too much overall.

“It’s always the problem of overfunding,” Primorac says. “[Congress] doesn’t seem to be aware that we just don’t have money to spend like we did before.”

Primorac says the package included some positives for supporters of the administration’s views on foreign aid — such as the lack of funding for programs that support gender equality, LGBTQ issues and climate change and less funding overall for United Nations agencies.

But he was surprised at the $9.4 billion allocated for global health programs aimed at curbing diseases like HIV/Aids, malaria and addressing maternal and child health and other issues. It’s largely the same level of funding for global health as previous years, he says.

“It’s too much money and keeping alive an industry that has been living off of the taxpayer money for far too long,” Primorac says.

The Trump administration has been critical of aid groups and NGOs who, in the previous aid model, received the bulk of foreign aid funding to do global health work. Primorac says they spend too much on overhead costs rather than the actual issues. Instead, he says, the administration’s new strategy encourages self-sufficiency in low income countries.

“My concern is that [this package] could actually upend the reforms of this administration by creating disincentives for these African states to take more financial ownership and therefore more responsibility if they see that this money has to be spent anyway,” Primorac says.

Both Katz and Primorac agree that the passing of this package won’t be the end of the debate between Congress and the White House over foreign aid.

“I think we’re likely to see an administration that continues to make decisions about spending that it thinks should be the priority versus that which Congress believes should be the priority,” Katz says.

Ultimately, the administration could end up asking Congress to take back the funds it allocated, like it did last year, he says.