Dear Secretary Rubio: You Are Right, Foreign Assistance Works. Please Resume It.

Dear Secretary Rubio: There have been few more eloquent advocates for foreign assistance than you. And I believe the case you make for US aid is backed up by considerable empirical evidence.

As you have said, “millions of human beings are alive today because [of] the United States, and others in the global community,” and that is because of HIV medications provided by the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and international HIV funding alone. You are right that “PEPFAR and other related programs have been able to move the needle closer to an AIDS-free future.”

It is hard to argue with you that “we need to continue this kind of foreign aid investment, not just in PEPFAR, but in malaria control and vaccine programs and in agriculture initiatives so that we can make similar strides in preventing hunger and establishing a healthy global community.”

All the evidence backs you up: PEPFAR has been saving lives in Africa since 2003, with particularly large associated declines in child mortality and maternal mortality. As you said on the Senate floor in 2017: PEPFAR had saved more than 11 million people and prevented 2 million babies from being born with HIV at that point. The President’s Malaria Initiative saved an estimated 185 million people from contracting malaria and prevented 940,049 deaths between 2005 and 2017. The US has led the effort to crush polio worldwide—as you proclaimed,  “there's been a 99% reduction in polio cases thanks to the efforts that we have led.” USAID-financed early warning systems help predict where famine might happen, and US food assistance helps stop it occurring. US assistance is also leading to higher farm incomes across the world.

It isn’t just health and nutrition. You have highlighted the role of the US in getting kids into school and the immense global progress on that measure. As you’ve said, USAID’s work helps “advance educational opportunities for children worldwide.” Indeed, USAID early grade reading programs improve literacy outcomes by about 23 percent.

You’ve pointed out that these investments have payback here at home: “We do these things because we're a compassionate people, but we also do it because it's in our national interest. Because perhaps more than any other nation on Earth, we understand that a world that is freer, more just, more peaceful and more prosperous poses less of a threat.” And that “foreign aid is a very cost-effective way, not only to export our values and our example, but to advance our security and our economic interests”

Once more, that’s simply right. Not least, richer countries are far less likely to fall into civil war. And you are also right to think US assistance has played a role in reducing threats to the US from fragile states. USAID’s crime prevention programs in Central America, designed to provide stability in local communities and reduce the number of people forced to flee from violence, reduced reported murder rates by 50 percent and reported illegal drug sales by 25 percent. US assistance helps improve governance in developing countries, which is associated with a host of benefits, including lower refugee flows. USAID democracy promotion expenditures are associated with a significant impact on democratic outcomes. As you have argued, “these programs are integral to our national security, and cuts at these levels undermine America’s ability to keep our citizens safe.”

There are economic benefits, as well. As you’ve noted, “12 of the 15 top trading partners of the United States were once recipients of United States foreign Assistance… people can't be consumers if they're starving, they can't be consumers if they're dying of HIV AIDS, they can't be consumers if they're dying of malaria, they can't be consumers if they live in an unstable country -so there is an economic rationale for our investment.” Again, that’s because aid works to promote economic growth. And that’s not just spending on infrastructure or governance: PEPFAR support is also associated with better economic performance and schooling outcomes.

Your argument for the soft power of assistance is compelling: “Imagine for a moment that you're a child born in Africa and your mother your parents had HIV and they survived because of American assistance; or imagine if you yourself was someone that survived because of American assistance from dying from HIV or from malaria; or you got to go to school because of American help; or you didn't contract polio the way your relatives used to contract polio because of American assistance. Imagine if you have one of these young people around the world whose lives are better because of the help of the American taxpayer. This is never going to be 100% for sure, but I promise you it's going to be a lot harder to recruit someone to anti-American terrorism if the United States of America was the reason why they're even alive today.”

And again, the evidence backs you up: PEPFAR support is associated with improved recipient attitudes towards the United States. US assistance in general is associated with countries subsequently voting with the US in UN Security Council votes. US aid is also linked to increased support for the United States and to a stronger commitment to liberal democratic values in the countries that receive it.

Finally, you’ve argued the US is still indispensable in the global fight for development and security: “there is no alternative for America in the world today if America decides to withdraw from the world, if America decides to step back.” Once more, the evidence is with you. While the US is not particularly generous in terms of foreign assistance when measured as a proportion of its economy, falling behind countries including Hungary and Slovenia, it remains by far the largest market economy worldwide. So, in absolute terms, it is the largest donor. No country can quickly move in to fill that role.

That’s why you were so right to emphasize that America can’t step back. On PEPFAR, you’ve said, “We have come so far in fighting this global crisis since the dark early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Now is not the time to retreat from the critical work ahead.” More generally you’ve argued: “the United States must continue leading the world in generosity and compassion.”

Secretary Rubio: you have also been a champion for US assistance reform, working across the aisle on issues including transparency and aid effectiveness. Again, there is no doubt that US foreign assistance could be far more effective.

Nonetheless, few understand better than you the cost in terms of lives, livelihoods, and America’s standing that is associated with what you have done and left undone in the last two weeks, a course of action with the ultimate effect of shutting down a considerable majority of foreign aid spending. And the waivers that you have issued to prevent the cutoff of emergency and medical programs in particular are utterly meaningless given there is no one in the office to implement them and make payments: nearly all USAID staff have been placed on leave and the USAID building locked. Please, urgently, remember what you know about the vital role of US foreign assistance to America and the world, and reverse course.