The politics of foreign aid have always been challenging, but particularly so since the start of the second Trump administration, which has dramatically reduced aid and outright eliminated the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The hostility to foreign aid is routinely framed in terms that are similar to the administration’s sharp opposition to immigration—namely, that generous policies toward needy foreigners represent direct losses for American citizens. For example, the White House put out a statement on January 20, 2025 regarding Americans’ interests in non-Western countries. The President said, “The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests.”

This kind of stark zero-sum thinking has a long history. For instance, in an influential and extremely controversial 1974 article in Psychology Today titled “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Garrett Hardin wrote about “spaceship ethics” vs. “lifeboat ethics.” He critiqued those who view the planet as “spaceship earth” and who insist on a spaceship ethic that would indicate that “since we all share this earth, no single person or institution has the right to destroy, waste, or use more than a fair share of its resources.” Hardin argued that in the absence of a global “captain” of the ship, such an ethic leads to a tragedy of the commons. Hardin argued that, “Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible.” Though it’s harsh, we can’t save everyone.

The philosophy behind lifeboat ethics is that, “Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in.” The ones less fortunate are the poor swimming in the ocean who rely on the rich to save them. But according to Hardin the rich cannot and should not save them. He argued that, just as a lifeboat has limited carrying capacity such that overloading it will sink it and drown everyone, the world’s resources and carrying capacity are finite, such that over-sharing leads to destruction for all.

Hardin argued further that if we keep lending/giving money to the poor, then they will never learn how to budget or mend their own ways, and will become over-reliant on Western aid and never a functioning country on their own. He invoked the biblical example of Joseph, who stored food in years of plenty and saved Egypt from famine. He argued that foreign aid discourages governments of poor nations from learning this crucial lesson about planning.

However, as someone who has metaphorically been one of those swimming out in the open ocean, I find this kind of reasoning and rhetoric about foreign aid to be deeply flawed both logically and morally. I spent the first couple years of my life in an orphanage in Kampala, Uganda called Amani Baby Cottage that was founded and funded by Americans with a passion to care for orphans. As the organization explains on its website, “Amani, established in 2003, has cared for over 460 children. Our goal for the last 21 years has been to find families for our children forever, by either reunification with their birth families or through adoption.” To me it is both hurtful and disingenuous when Hardin and his ilk talk about the “necessity” of leaving the poor behind. These are the very same children that I was raised with in my earliest years.

I have directly benefited from American aid and support, and I know this support did not impose major costs on American wealth and well-being. This is also evident at the level of government expenditures, as only a little over 1% of all federal spending goes toward foreign aid. Lifeboat ethics do not quite add up in the real world. Offering foreign aid to poorer countries does not actually cost Americans their lives, as it may in a lifeboat. It may cost a vacation home or a hobby car… but not lives. However, not having aid money will cost people their lives in poor countries.

To be sure, valid criticisms of foreign aid can be made. For example, some studies point to the high percentage of foreign aid funds that flow to Western provider organizations rather than local governments and nongovernmental organizations. Another common concern is the prevalence of corruption in some poorer countries. In Africa, for instance, Henri Njangang et al. argue in the Journal of Policy Modeling that, “Corruption in African governments is a deeply entrenched challenge, estimated to cost the continent billions annually. It takes forms like petty bribery for essential public services, large-scale state capture, and illicit financial flows, with the police and judiciary frequently perceived as the most corrupt institutions.”

Nevertheless, such issues are a matter of reforming foreign aid, not cancelling it. Countries and NGOs need reformed systems set in place to make sure that people receive the help that they need, with oversight to ensure that the money is actually going to people in need rather than to the organization’s costs or right back to the government.

We need to move beyond a lifeboat ethic to a lifeline ethic in foreign aid. It is not about naively trying to equalize resources across the entire planet but rather simply extending help to bolster basic life chances for those less fortunate.

Finally, I believe that people of faith in particular should find common cause in supporting a lifeline ethic in foreign aid. While Hardin found it convenient to invoke the biblical example of Joseph regarding famine preparation, he left out the numerous biblical calls for justice and mercy for the poor, for loving our neighbor. As a child who was in an orphanage in Uganda, I know how much difference it can make when the world’s wealthy respond even modestly to this ethic.