-(4)-1731951738-q80.webp){kind=small}
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirmed on Monday that the United States is not abandoning foreign aid entirely but is instead eliminating what he called “dumb” and wasteful spending. His remarks came during an interview on SiriusXM’s The David Webb Show, where he defended the State Department’s ongoing review of U.S. foreign assistance.
“We’re not walking away from foreign aid,” Rubio stated. “We are walking away from foreign aid that’s dumb, that’s stupid, that wastes American taxpayer money.” He emphasized that the administration would not continue funding ineffective programs that fail to align with President Trump’s foreign policy objectives.
The review follows an executive order issued by Trump that freezes all new foreign assistance for three months. The pause allows the administration to assess whether current aid programs serve American interests.
Rubio made clear that this reassessment does not mean the U.S. is abandoning critical aid programs but rather ensuring that taxpayer money is spent efficiently.
Rubio highlighted that humanitarian aid would still be provided in cases where it prevents crises that could threaten U.S. national security.
“Are people going to starve to death? Are we going to have a famine? Is it going to destabilize a country in a way that would be negative to our national interest and open the door for radical jihadists or others to take advantage?” he asked. “We’re going to continue to do those.”
The secretary of state argued that the term “humanitarian aid” has expanded too broadly, leading the U.S. to fund projects that are unnecessary or better handled by other nations or organizations.
“The problem is that the definition of ‘humanitarian’ has expanded beyond that—to all kinds of other things that do not make sense. That doesn’t mean they’re bad ideas. Someone should do it. It just shouldn’t be the American taxpayer,” he said.
Rubio confirmed that Trump’s executive order includes a waiver process, allowing the State Department to exempt certain programs from the freeze. Shortly after the order was issued, he announced that lifesaving treatments and medications would not be impacted.
However, the lack of clarity over which specific programs are exempt has caused confusion, particularly among international clinics reliant on U.S. funding.
One major concern raised in response to the freeze is the future of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program credited with saving over 25 million lives since its launch in 2003.
The uncertainty surrounding its funding has alarmed global health organizations that depend on U.S. contributions to combat HIV/AIDS.
When asked directly about PEPFAR, Rubio expressed continued support for the initiative but suggested that its effectiveness should lead to a gradual reduction in funding. “I’m a supporter of PEPFAR. I have been in Congress. I am now as Secretary of State. It’s a program we want to continue,” he stated.
However, he also noted that a truly successful program should require less funding over time.
“If PEPFAR is working well, it’s a program that should be getting smaller over time, not bigger, right?” Rubio said. “Because you’re preventing HIV, you’re preventing the spread of HIV, and so people aren’t testing positive because their viral load gets down, they’re not passing it on to their children.”
He reiterated that the ultimate goal of PEPFAR has always been an “AIDS-free generation,” where no child is born with HIV. While he insisted that the program remains a priority for the administration, he also suggested that its continued growth should be scrutinized to ensure it remains necessary at current funding levels.
The debate over U.S. foreign aid has intensified as the Trump administration pushes for a more America-first approach to international engagement.
Supporters of the cuts argue that foreign aid is often mismanaged and used inefficiently, while critics warn that reducing assistance could lead to instability in key regions, creating long-term security threats for the U.S.
While the details of the foreign aid review remain unclear, Rubio’s comments suggest that the administration is committed to restructuring U.S. assistance rather than eliminating it entirely.
Programs deemed essential to national security and humanitarian efforts will continue, but spending that is viewed as unnecessary or outside the U.S. government’s core responsibilities will likely be cut.
For now, international aid organizations and recipient nations remain on edge as they await final decisions on which programs will be preserved and which will face reductions or eliminations. The next few months will be crucial in determining the long-term direction of U.S. foreign assistance under the Trump administration.
