Trump Is Not Ending Foreign Aid — He’s Reshaping It To Advance US Commercial And Geopolitical Interests

The simple storyline that the Trump administration has destroyed decades of development aid misses the nuance: Washington is not abandoning foreign assistance so much as recasting it. Under an emergent "America First" global-health doctrine, US funding will continue for major public-health efforts and basic services — but every dollar must also advance American commercial goals, showcase US science and technology, and amplify US influence.

Key to the new approach is a transactional logic: partner governments are expected to co-invest, sign commercial contracts, commit to timetables for taking over costs, and treat the United States as a hard-nosed business partner rather than a purely philanthropic donor. The administration has spotlighted Zipline — an 11-year-old drone company — as a poster child for this model.

How The New Model Works — And Why It’s Different

On paper, the model is simple. Grants and technical backing are contingent on demonstrable demand and commercial agreements. Private companies grow while delivering services, and US technology gains footholds abroad. The Trump administration's recent $150 million grant to Zipline is presented as proof of concept: public money catalyzes private-sector expansion tied to measurable national and commercial priorities.

Zipline’s Experience In Africa: A Reality Check

Zipline pivoted to medical deliveries roughly a decade ago and built much of its business through contracts with African governments to ship vaccines, blood and essential supplies to clinics. But the rollout has exposed tensions between commercial incentives and public priorities. In Ghana, Zipline reports roughly $22 million in unpaid invoices accumulated since 2018 — a shortfall magnified by the Ghanaian cedi’s sharp depreciation between 2021 and 2024. In response to fiscal strains and a new administration’s assessment that over 95% of deliveries were nonessential and that 85% of targeted clinics were not remote enough to justify drones, Zipline has closed about half its distribution bases.

"Alignment of interests — the holy grail of the America First model — can be messy in practice," critics say. "Operational realities, currency risk and disputed public priorities complicate the tidy transactional theory."

Why Scaling This Model Is Challenging

Zipline’s $150 million grant will be fully disbursed only if African governments sign expansion agreements that could require up to $400 million in public payments over five years. That potential obligation dwarfs a decade of drone-delivery profits on the continent and would force many governments to sharply increase health-sector spending on a single technology. Such scaling makes sense only if the shift from niche emergency deliveries to higher-volume services reflects transparent, evidence-based public priorities rather than elite preferences or one-off procurement deals.

This model assumes partner governments can define and defend public priorities under public scrutiny. In many countries, however, priority-setting remains opaque, making a strictly transactional aid model vulnerable to budget shortfalls, political reversals and governance gaps. Without robust public oversight, the transactional approach risks becoming chaotic and difficult to scale.

What To Watch Next

The coming three years will test whether this approach is visionary or unrealistic. Success would require disciplined public budgeting, clear performance metrics, and accountable local governance. Failure could leave governments saddled with unsustainable contracts and donors unable to realize promised geopolitical or commercial returns.

Contextual note: Zipline was named one of Time magazine’s Most Influential Companies in 2023 — a mark of private-sector acclaim that does not by itself resolve the political and fiscal questions its expansion raises.