Faith and Foreign Aid: Biblical Directives for Humanitarian Assistance

“And if of two, one be more closely connected, and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide, by any general rule, which of them we ought to help rather than the other, since there are various degrees of want as well as of connection: and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man.”

— Thomas Aquinas

In 2023, I traveled to Madagascar with a congressional staff delegation to witness efforts that were then underway to provide aid in the form of food, clean water, and economic development across one of the poorest countries in the world. This work was funded by a wide variety of nations and carried out by organizations like Catholic Relief Services and the UN’s World Food Program. While traveling through Madagascar, we saw starving children being nourished back to health through the provision of Ready to Use Therapeutic Food packets. We saw desalination systems being installed at a local elementary school so not just the school children, but nearly 6,000 members of the surrounding community could have access to clean water. In some areas where there was not a paved road in sight and tools as simple as watering cans and wheelbarrows were widely unavailable if not unheard of, we were greeted with smiling faces by members of the local Tandroy tribe performing a traditional song and dance of welcome. As a follower of Christ, it is difficult not to see this aid as a way to meet the commands laid out again and again throughout Scripture to feed the hungry, provide water to the thirsty, and give to the poor and “least of these” (Proverbs 19:17, Matthew 25:34-40, Luke 3:11, 1 John 3:17-18).

On that same trip, however, we met with local government officials, representatives of the European Union, and staff at the U.S. embassy who repeatedly shared that they were skeptical that any of these assistance efforts would address the underlying problems that led to widespread poverty and malnourishment across Madagascar. Some officials even believed that aid from foreign governments and multilateral organizations like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) contributed to the institutional corruption and sclerosis perpetuating the country’s ongoing cycle of poverty as it propped up the actors in power. They cited examples of funds being used to build schools without hiring teachers or hospitals without hiring medical staff simply so that the local authorities could host a ribbon cutting and appear to be working on behalf of the people, all while the same group of powerful individuals lined their pockets with international generosity. This all comes at a time when the United States’ national debt has risen over $38 trillion with tens of trillions more in implicit obligations, which leads to valid questions about what the wisest allocation of resources is given scriptural advice against such debt and fiscal irresponsibility (Proverbs 22:7).

As a believer on Capitol Hill, I struggle with the question of what role the United States government ought to have in providing foreign aid, and how both Christian policy makers and the church more broadly should approach our role in international assistance beyond traditional missions work. The Scriptures provide fairly limited instruction regarding the role of governments, which includes direction “to punish those who do evil and praise those who do good,” (1 Peter 2:14), to serve as the instrument of God’s judgment for wrongdoers (Romans 13:3-4), and to build structures that allow citizens to “lead a peaceful and quiet life,” (1 Timothy 2:1-2). God has also judged and punished kings and nations who promote injustice and oppression among their people (Isaiah 10:1-2, Ezekiel 16:49-50). However, it seems clear that there is not an explicit scriptural command for the government itself to engage in any particular level or form of foreign assistance, humanitarian or otherwise. 

This question of the government’s role in foreign aid has remained at the forefront in policy debates in recent years. In Fiscal Year 2024, the United States provided over $86 billion in obligated funds for foreign assistance, covering everything from foreign military financing and security assistance to  humanitarian aid and economic development.¹ However, within a week of President Trump’s second inauguration, the administration issued an executive order freezing all foreign aid for 90 days,² called for stop-work orders for nearly all existing foreign assistance awards, and began a systemic review of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Over the course of the following months, waivers were granted for certain aid programs, including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and other forms of lifesaving humanitarian aid,³ lawsuits were filed,⁴ temporary restraining orders were issued, and more lawsuits were filed. By March 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that a six-week review had been completed, the result of which was the cancellation of 83 percent of programs at USAID. By July 1, USAID⁵ officially closed its doors and was folded into the broader State Department.⁶

The administration cited examples of waste, fraud, and abuse at USAID, including tens of thousands of dollars for a “transgender opera” in Colombia and “hundreds of thousands of meals that went to al-Qaeda affiliated fighters in Syria.”⁷ Upon USAID’s closing, Secretary Rubio pointed to rising anti-American sentiment in areas where we had previously provided aid and numerous cases where assistance was ineffective or counterproductive, and called for a new era where aid was overseen and operated through the broader State Department.⁸ The administration said these changes would be made in order to ensure that future assistance was both targeted and time-limited, with the eventual aim of moving beyond aid and into trading partnerships where developing countries were no longer dependent on American support. Critics on the other hand, decried these changes as neglecting our responsibility to care for “the least of these” and pointed to studies indicating that USAID cuts would lead to hundreds of thousands more deaths across the globe as evidence that they could not be in line with sincerely held pro-life beliefs.⁹

Last January, in a defense of the administration’s efforts to limit further illegal immigration, Vice President J.D. Vance made an appearance on Fox News where he stated that, “You love your family and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then after that, you can focus [on] and prioritize the rest of the world.” He later responded to critics on X by citing this philosophy as rooted in the Catholic doctrine of ordo amoris, or “order of loves.” St. Augustine expounds this idea in On Christian Doctrine: 

Further, all men are to be loved equally. But since you cannot do good to all, you are to pay special regard to those who, by the accidents of time, or place, or circumstance, are brought into closer connection with you…Just so among men: since you cannot consult for the good of them all, you must take the matter as decided for you by a sort of lot, according as each man happens for the time being to be more closely connected with you.¹⁰

While this is not a limitation strictly on “loving” all mankind, it does impart some insight into our finite capacity for practically supporting or doing good to those around us. 1 Timothy 5 also seems to speak into the instruction of James 1:27 to “visit the orphans and widows in their affliction” by placing some strictures on the need for assistance to those who are “truly widows,” and commanding the remaining family to “learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents.”

However, further expansion on this doctrine by both Augustine and Aquinas seems to make clear that this is not a strict limitation on assisting those outside our immediate sphere of influence, but rather a calling to care first for those who are nearest us and not to neglect our own families and neighbors. Aquinas expands upon Augustine’s work in his Summa Theologica, clarifying that while we are certainly called to care first and foremost with those whom we are most closely connected, we are also called to prioritize those who are in greater need. As an oversimplification, any parent who witnessed a pedestrian get struck by a car while driving home would not be justified in ignoring the victim simply because they were dealing with their own child’s paper cut. Aquinas emphasizes that many questions of beneficence will require wisdom and discernment in how to best care for those around us given our limited capacity:

The case may occur, however, that one ought rather to invite strangers, on account of their greater want. For it must be understood that, other things being equal, one ought to succor those rather who are most closely connected with us. And if of two, one be more closely connected, and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide, by any general rule, which of them we ought to help rather than the other, since there are various degrees of want as well as of connection: and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man.¹¹
 

There is also the question of who we consider our family and neighbor under this doctrine of ordo amoris. While we are called to honor our immediate family, Christ not only calls into question whether these familial ties are not less important than our heavenly ties among fellow believers in the body of Christ (Matthew 12:49-50), but also clearly declares that Christian love, unlike the love of non-believers, should not be limited to solely our family, (Matthew 5:47).  And as seen with the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10, being a neighbor consists of more than simply those with whom we share geographical or cultural ties, but rather choosing to assist those who we see in need regardless of the closeness of our connection to them, (Luke 10).  Christ even directs us to avoid inviting our family, friends, or neighbors if we are to host a banquet, “lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid” (Luke 14:12).

What would it look like if Christians actively engaged with this call to charity and beneficence? We have documentation of the cultural influence the early church had by assisting those both within and outside of their communities as they practiced active love and costly generosity towards all in need that they could assist. The Roman Emperor Julian, the last non-Christian emperor who ruled in the mid-fourth century, wrote to the high priest of Galatia: “For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us.”¹² Dionysios wrote in the late second century to the church in Rome, thanking for them for sending aid to their brothers and sisters in Corinth and beyond: “For from the beginning this has been a custom for you, always acting as a benefactor to siblings in various ways and sending financial support to many assemblies in every city, thus relieving the need of those in want and supplying additional help to the siblings who are in the mines.”¹³ Paul speaks of the grace of God present in the generosity of the churches of Macedonia, “for in a severe test of affliction, their abundance of joy and their extreme poverty have overflowed in a wealth of generosity on their part. For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints – and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us.” (2 Corinthians 8:1-5) 

To some extent, our problems today with the government’s role in humanitarian assistance result from an abdication of responsibility by the modern church. While Christians do tend to be more generous than non-believers, one 2024 study found that the average American evangelical gives just 3.3 percent of their income to church or charity.¹⁴ This does not even begin to take into account the fact that we are living in the richest nation in the history of the world, or Jesus’ commands to a similarly situated Zacchaeus to give away half of his belongings or to the rich young ruler to give all he had. While there are certainly Christian charities and NGOs that engage in admirable humanitarian work across the globe, ranging from Samaritan’s Purse to Catholic Relief Services, even these efforts are funded in large part through government assistance. For those of us who have been so richly blessed by the Lord’s favor, there are clear commands throughout scripture that we must care for the poor, the oppressed, and even the stranger through our personal generosity. (Ezekiel 16:49, Acts 4:34-35, Hebrews 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 6:17-19) Tim Keller writes in his book Generous Justice, “Jesus taught that a lack of concern for the poor is not a minor lapse, but reveals that something is seriously wrong with one’s spiritual compass, the heart.”¹⁵ What would it look like if the church took this responsibility more seriously both at home and abroad?

While there may be many instances where charity is preferable to governmental intervention, the leverage that the U.S. government has may place it in a position to be more effective in ensuring human flourishing in certain contexts throughout the world than any NGO or church organization could hope to be. Gary Haugen, founder of International Justice Mission, has written extensively about the problem of violence throughout the developing world as an impediment to the success of other forms of humanitarian assistance such as food, water, and education. Children and families cannot be expected to have access to the resources provided by governments or charities if their safety is not assured as they go about their daily lives, and many governments across the globe do not have either the resources or the desire to provide for effective law enforcement. In spaces where organizations like IJM may have limited capacity to force changes, the United States can and has stepped in to negotiate Child Protection Compacts that can be carried out in conjunction with IJM and foreign countries like Romania and the Philippines to improve those nations’ ability to combat online child sexual exploitation or child labor trafficking. Likewise, government agencies like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) can promote and incentivize private investment in foreign countries that leads to a positive return on investment both for American taxpayer dollars and in the foreign countries where the investments are made. As an example, the DFC invested just $3.4 million to assist with a mining and refining facility in Angola, which will begin producing next year at a rate of approximately 20,000 tonnes per year of invaluable rare earth deposits that are vital to our broader strategic aims and geopolitical competition with adversaries like China.¹⁶ Work done by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom designating Countries of Particular Concern has drawn attention to persecuted people of faith throughout the world, from the genocide of the Uyghurs in China to the ongoing abuse of Christians throughout Nigeria, and the annual Trafficking in Persons Report provides accountability for those who tolerate or participate in forced labor and sex trafficking. Each of these arms of the United States foreign policy apparatus fills a void that would not otherwise be met if we were to withdraw completely from the world stage.

Finally, it is important to consider the impact of humanitarian giving, both through private charity and government aid, on the moral imagination of a society. America has long been the most generous nation in the world, and that generosity has formative power both at the individual and societal level. Our national conversation should be able to balance the imperative of fiscal responsibility with the benefits that have accrued to our nation as the beacon on a hill we have long represented. These go beyond obvious practical advantages like the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency or global freedom of navigation, and have the potential to inform the very character of a people. In Abraham Kuyper’s address at the founding of the Free University in Amsterdam, he speaks of the impact of generosity, in this case upon those who were willing to financially support an independent educational institution, “Is not giving in itself a power; is not the ability to part with money a moral asset; who then will rightly value the moral capital that will accrue to our people through this costly Institution? Complaints have been made about lack of character, but what can be more helpful in forming character than such free initiative on the part of vigilant citizens?” The Bible time and time again admonishes the wealthy who store up temporal treasures while neglecting the call of openhanded generosity the Lord has given those who follow him, (Luke 12:16-21, James 5:1-6).

Taking into consideration the lack of a clear Scriptural framework for government in humanitarian assistance, it is valid for Christians to debate what scale and scope of aid prudence allows for, particularly when there are unmet domestic needs and a soon to be crippling national debt. However, Christian citizens should not allow that debate to lead them to neglect the dignity of our fellow image bearers abroad who are in dire need. Whether through encouraging individual charitable giving or through support for targeted government aid in places where it can make a difference, it is important for Christian policy makers to keep at the forefront Christ’s mission “to proclaim good news to the poor…to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,” (Luke 4:18).

¹  U.S. Department of State, Fiscal Year 2024 Foreign Assistance Obligations, http://www.foreignassistance.gov.
² The White House, “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” January 20, 2025.
³ U.S. Department of State, “Emergency Humanitarian Waiver to Foreign Assistance Pause,” January 28, 2025.
⁴ American Foreign Service Association v. Donald J. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00352 (D.D.C. filed Feb. 6, 2025).
⁵ Marco Rubio (@marcorubio), “After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID,” X, March 10, 2025; Melody Schreiber, “Rubio Announces That 83% of USAID Contracts Will Be Canceled,” NPR, March 10, 2025.
⁶ U.S. Mission to the Holy See, “Making Foreign Aid Great Again,” July 1, 2025.
⁷  The White House, “At USAID, Waste and Abuse Runs Deep,” February 3, 2025.
⁸  U.S. Mission to the Holy See, “Making Foreign Aid Great Again,” July 1, 2025.
⁹  Karen Feldscher, “USAID Shutdown Has Led to Hundreds of Thousands of Deaths,” Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, November 20, 2025.
¹⁰ Augustine, On Christian Doctrine. I, 27.
¹¹ Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II–II, q. 31, “Beneficence,” trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, New Advent, accessed March 15, 2026.
¹²  Julian, Letters, trans. Wilmer Cave Wright, Loeb Classical Library 157 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923), 69.
¹³ Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887), bk. 19, chap. 23, Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
¹⁴ Infinity Concepts and Grey Matter Research, The Giving Gap: Changes in Evangelical Generosity (2024).
_¹⁵ Timothy Keller, Generous Justice (Dutton, 2010).
¹⁶ U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, “Supporting Development: Rare Earth Processing Facility in Angola,” accessed March 15, 2026.