TORONTO, Canada — There’s a common misconception that elections in the United States only affect the nation; however, the reality is that when Americans vote, the consequences extend beyond U.S. borders. Elections in the U.S. shape global development priorities that affect millions of people around the world living in poverty, determining whether life-saving programs expand, shrink or fade altogether. From foreign aid budgets to engagement with international institutions (e.g., the World Health Organization), changes in political leadership can quickly change how the U.S. engages with the world’s poorest communities. Here are four key ways U.S. elections shape global development outcomes.
Foreign Aid Budgets
U.S. elections directly influence how much funding Congress allocates to foreign aid and development programs. Changes in party control often lead to changes in proposed budgets for education, food security and governance initiatives. For example, bipartisan congressional support for the Feed the Future initiative in 2010 strengthened global food security programs, helping reduce poverty in partner countries, such as Niger, through agricultural investment and nutrition programs.
However, foreign assistance funding has faced repeated proposed cuts during periods of “America First” political momentum, while other administrations have sought to protect or expand spending. Most recently, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) eliminated more than 90% of its foreign aid programs. Even when cuts are not fully enacted, uncertainty can disrupt projects in countries that rely on predictable funding streams.
Global Health Programs
One area which demonstrates the power of U.S. elections is global health. Programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), created in 2003, have historically received bipartisan support and saved more than 20 million lives and supported HIV treatment worldwide. Another example is the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which receives significant U.S. congressional funding.
However, elections still shape how programs like these are funded and implemented, particularly around reproductive health, family planning and vaccine distribution. Due to the dismantling of USAID, the government significantly cut funding from programs like PEPFAR.
Humanitarian Responses
U.S. elections also affect how the country responds to different humanitarian emergencies, such as famines, refugee crises and natural disasters. Political leadership influences which crises receive attention and how quickly aid is released. Historically, congress has authorized emergency funding during global crises such as Ebola outbreaks, Syrian refugee displacement and famine threats in Africa.
Political leadership also influences whether displaced populations are framed as victims in need of protection or as security threats. For example, U.S. responses to refugee crises have varied widely depending on election outcomes, affecting funding for refugee assistance abroad and the willingness to accept refugees domestically. Recently, according to the BBC, the current administration “halted the US refugee resettlement programme,” while the Biden administration accepted more than 100,000 refugees.
Engagement With International Institutions
Finally, elections determine how the U.S. engages with international institutions like the United Nations and World Health Organization (WHO). While some administrations prioritize global collaboration, using these institutions to develop financing and coordinated poverty reduction, others reduce funding and withdraw from agreements. As the U.S. is one of the most influential members of these organizations, its level of engagement affects global health coordination, debt relief initiatives and development norms.
Historically, the U.S. has been the WHO’s top donor, contributing more than $1 billion throughout 2022-2023. However, earlier this year, President Trump issued an Executive Order “formally initiating the United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organization.”
Looking Ahead
Together, these examples illustrate a crucial reality: U.S. elections shape global development priorities in tangible ways. A single election can change policies, funding flows and international commitments that millions of people depend on. As humanitarian needs, global inequality and humanitarian needs continue to grow, understanding the global impact of U.S. elections is crucial as its consequences are not only domestic, but global.
– Sara Aboulela
Sara is based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada and focuses on Politics for The Borgen Project.
Photo: Flickr