FPIF - By Bianca Filoni | April 3, 2026 - Do No Harm : Apply This Standard to U.S. Foreign Policy Where economic and diplomatic tools were once used as first solutions, the Trump administration is now going with the military first.m: A - By Bianca Filoni | April 3, 2026

Do No Harm: Apply This Standard to U.S. Foreign Policy

Where economic and diplomatic tools were once used as first solutions, the Trump administration is now going with the military first.

By Bianca Filoni | April 3, 2026

According to War Watch, there are 86 active conflicts occurring around the world. Of those, the United States is an actor in seven. Most recently, the United States has carried out strikes against Iran in an attempt to end a dictatorial regime and prevent the development of nuclear weapons. Although there was no evidence of the country being able to use long-range weapons to reach American soil, the United States nonetheless joined Israel to bomb targets throughout Iran, including strikes that killed substantial numbers of civilians.

Such a large-scale conflict is extremely costly not only in terms of lives lost but monetarily as well.

The United States has spent $25 billion on the Iran War. Although some signs point toward an end to the conflict, the Pentagon has requested another $200 billion to fund the war.

But this money does not need to be spent on war. It could go instead to more pressing domestic and humanitarian needs. Last year, the Trump administration dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which helped to provide humanitarian efforts to over 100 countries. These programs prevented global health crises and provided disaster relief, education, and food security to millions of people around the world.

By cutting this aid, the administration not only has removed access to basic human rights, but in its place it has created a power vacuum that other superpowers or militant non-state actors rush to control. With funding cuts to USAID, for instance, the U.S. government also eliminated the peacekeeping program within Somalia, with the Al-Shabaab terrorist organization now threatening the political stability of the region. People need to rely on the government for help—if the central power can no longer do so, other actors will exploit the situation and offer assistance. The withdrawal of aid also serves to boost recruitment into these organizations, usually in the form of financial motivators to youth. Cutting aid in thus increases violence abroad, causes more struggle, and now threatens U.S. security.

Expanding Military Footprint

Hard power has now substituted for forms of soft power like peacekeeping and diplomacy. Rather than addressing the conditions that breed instability, the Trump administration has opted for military dominance, which is an expensive and unsustainable response. The invasion of Iran is a prime example of the military escalations that could have been resolved through alternative means. In 2018, Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which constrained Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapons program and also allowed for monitoring of Iran’s nuclear sites. The Biden administration explored rejoining the agreement, but ultimately failed to follow through.

The Iran escalation is not a one-off incident but a pattern that reflects a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy. The Trump administration has set its sights on dominating the Western hemisphere by increasing involvement in Venezuela since Nicolás Maduro’s capture in January. Operation Absolute Resolve had a huge price tag, involving an estimated 150 aircrafts, one of which costs $91,330 per hour to fly. The administration is continuing to conduct its drug interdiction campaign at sea and on land. Trump continues to talk of a “friendly takeover” of Cuba.

Here, too, the United States could address the issues diplomatically. But where economic and diplomatic tools were once used as first solutions, the Trump administration is now going with the military first.

Foreign Aid to Military Budget Gap

The same administration that has asked for a $1.5 trillion military budget in FY27, a 50 percent increase over the current budget, has already cut the International Affairs Budget by 85 percent for FY26. Foreign assistance represents less than one percent of total U.S. spending (though many Americans believe that number is closer to 25 percent). Even as billions, and now trillions, are allocated to military operations, the humanitarian infrastructure that reduces the need for military intervention in the first place has been dismantled.

The effects from the decrease in foreign aid in 2025 are now visible. When the United States withdrew funding and support, the United Nations was forced to reallocate funds to countries with the highest risk. The impact has been immediate and severe, ranging from a loss of health-care access in Afghanistan, rising malnutrition in Uganda, and a collapse of educational infrastructure in Bangladesh that has driven spikes in child marriage and child labor.

Early forecasts suggested more than 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 from the cuts to USAID. However, some sectors like the HIV/AIDS prevention efforts powered by U.S. funding have not seen the projected collapse of treatment, which can be attributed to reprioritization and volunteer community health work within affected countries. Overall though, many are still struggling to readjust to life without essential needs met. As the United States spends billions on Operation Epic Fury alone, millions are dying from hunger, disease, and disaster, conditions that those billions of dollars once prevented.

A Different Approach

To become again a nation that leads with diplomacy rather than weapons, U.S. policies must reflect the values the country claims to stand for. A shift in approach would help restore international credibility to the United States, and more importantly, meaningfully reverse the damage being done.

Although USAID funding will not likely be fully restored any time soon, at least the International Affairs Budget can be funded at sufficient levels to reach the most vulnerable. The FY26 request slashed the budget from $61.1 billion to $9.4 billion, which is just 0.63 percent of the administration’s proposed $1.5 trillion military budget. Congress, however, pushed back against the rigid foreign aid cuts and granted a budget for international engagement that was 61 percent more than originally requested. A bipartisan effort helped restore peacekeeping missions and uphold UN participation. Still, humanitarian aid is still $3 billion less than the previous average annual contribution.

Some policymakers could be persuaded to back higher levels of support for the State Department and humanitarian aid if poverty and human rights advocacy across the world are presented as foreign affairs issues, not as charity. Healthy populations with access to education and economic opportunity are less vulnerable to militant recruitment and more capable of building stable governance.

The United States has a standard in medicine to do no harm. It’s time to apply the same ethics to U.S. foreign policy.

Bianca Filoni

Bianca Filoni is a Master’s student at Rollins College studying strategic communications. She is a Borgen Project advocate and has an interest in politics and foreign policy.