Where Your Tax Dollars Go Abroad: The Real Story of U.S. Foreign Aid

U.S. Foreign Aid in the Last Decade: A Deep Dive into Top Recipients

Introduction

In late 2025, a meeting between Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago culminated in a massive gift – an $8.6 billion Pentagon contract for new F‑15 fighter jets for Israel^[1]. The deal, funded by U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF) grants (essentially American taxpayer money), will supply 25 advanced F‑15IA planes with an option for 25 more by 2035^[2]. This eye-opening contract is just one example of how U.S. foreign aid – especially military aid – quietly flows to allied nations. From 2015 to 2025, the United States has sent tens of billions of dollars abroad in various forms of aid, with a few countries receiving the lion’s share. Yet these enormous expenditures often garner little public scrutiny. In this investigative deep-dive, we will explore the top three recipients of U.S. foreign aid over the past decade – who they are, how much they receive, and what that aid is used for – followed by other notable beneficiaries. The goal is to provide an immersive, factual look at U.S. foreign assistance, examining its scale, rationale, and implications for American policy and taxpayers.

U.S. Foreign Aid: Scale and Purpose

The United States is the world’s largest donor of foreign aid in absolute terms, spending about $50–75 billion per year on assistance programs in recent years^[3][4]. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, U.S. foreign aid disbursements totaled $71.9 billion, equal to roughly 1.2% of the federal budget^[4]. (By comparison, in the 1960s at the height of the Cold War, aid was over 4% of the budget^[5].) This aid encompasses military assistance, economic development programs, humanitarian relief, and global health initiatives. U.S. officials argue such spending advances American national security and humanitarian values, forging strategic partnerships and stability abroad^[6][7]. Indeed, aid priorities shift with world events – wars, disasters, and geopolitical threats prompt spikes in support^[8].

It’s important to note that U.S. foreign aid is financed by American taxpayers, and because the U.S. has run persistent budget deficits, much of this money is borrowed. The federal government must often borrow from outside lenders (including foreign investors) to fund all its programs, so some portion of every aid dollar ultimately incurs interest costs^[9]. For example, as of 2025 roughly one-third of U.S. public debt is held by overseas creditors, like Japan and China – meaning billions in U.S. interest payments flow abroad annually^[9]. In effect, when Congress authorizes aid without offsetting revenue, future Americans pay not only the principal but also ongoing interest to creditors. This dynamic – borrowing money (sometimes from rivals) to give away as aid – is seldom highlighted in aid debates but is a fiscal reality.

Foreign aid is approved through the U.S. budget process: Congress appropriates funds for programs like the State Department’s economic aid and the Department of Defense’s security assistance. Often these come in large omnibus bills or emergency supplemental packages. Because aid is spread across over 20 government agencies and usually wrapped in broader legislation, major aid commitments can pass with limited public spotlight. The $8.6 billion F‑15 deal for Israel, for instance, was announced in a Pentagon press release and a short Reuters blurb^[1], but it did not spark widespread media debate on why U.S. taxpayers are buying jets for a wealthy country. Such patterns are common: aid packages, especially military ones, often proceed as part of established partnerships, attracting far less attention than domestic spending of comparable size.

With that context, let’s examine the top three countries that have received the most U.S. funding over the past ten years (2015–2025). These are the nations that, through a mix of historical ties, strategic necessity, or wartime emergency, have benefitted from the largest sums of American assistance. We’ll start with the most funded recipient and work downward, then briefly highlight other significant beneficiaries to round out the top ten.

Ukraine: An Unprecedented Surge Amid War

Until a few years ago, Ukraine was a relatively small recipient of U.S. aid – mainly a few hundred million dollars annually in military training and economic support after Russia’s 2014 seizure of Crimea. That changed dramatically in 2022. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Ukraine has become the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. In fact, the scale of aid to Ukraine in just a short period is unprecedented in recent history. From February 2022 through the end of 2024, the U.S. allocated approximately $182.8 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine and nearby countries impacted by the war^[10]. This includes military assistance, economic/budgetary aid, and humanitarian relief. For perspective, that amount – authorized in just three years – far exceeds a decade’s worth of typical aid for any other country.

Not all of that money has been spent yet; as of early 2025, about $83 billion worth of aid and equipment had actually been delivered to Ukraine^[11]. (Much of the remainder is committed to contracts or future deliveries.) Still, in FY 2023 alone, the U.S. disbursed $16.6 billion to Ukraine, more than it gave to the next 159 countries combined that year^[12][13]. This astronomical surge was aimed at helping Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion and keep its government running^[14]. It represents a bipartisan consensus in Washington that Ukraine’s struggle has global stakes – defending the post-WWII principle against territorial aggression – and thus merits massive U.S. support.

What is all this money used for? About 71% of the Ukraine aid has been military and security assistance^[15]. The Department of Defense has provided tens of thousands of weapons from U.S. stockpiles – from Javelin anti-tank missiles and HIMARS rocket systems to artillery shells – as well as training and support for Ukraine’s armed forces. As of late 2024, the President had exercised special drawdown authority 55 times to send Ukraine U.S. equipment quickly, accounting for $45.8 billion worth of arms transfers^[16]. Additional funds have gone toward financing orders of new weapons (which will be delivered over coming years) and to bolstering U.S. military presence in Europe as a deterrent^[17]. Another roughly 24% of the aid is economic support for the Ukrainian government and economy^[18]. This includes direct budget support to pay civil servants and keep basic services running, as well as funds to repair energy infrastructure, support agriculture, and combat corruption in wartime. A smaller portion (about 2%) has been humanitarian aid – food, medical aid, and shelter for millions of displaced Ukrainians and refugees, largely delivered through USAID and the UN^[19]. There’s also a slice for U.S. government operations and oversight of the aid programs (ensuring weapons end-use monitoring, etc.)^[20].

Crucially, some U.S. aid to Ukraine is structured as loans or lend-lease that Kyiv is expected to repay eventually. For example, in May 2022 the U.S. revived a Lend-Lease program allowing transfer of military equipment on a loan basis^[21]. However, Congress deferred any repayment schedule indefinitely, meaning Ukraine won’t start paying until far in the future – and the debt may even be forgiven, akin to how WWII lend-lease was handled^[21]. The vast majority of assistance to date, though, has been outright grants. In practical terms, U.S. funds are keeping Ukraine’s armed forces in the fight and its state afloat, covering everything from soldiers’ ammunition to pension payments for teachers.

Even within America’s huge defense budget, the Ukraine aid stands out. All the Ukraine-related allocations through 2024 add up to less than 1% of total U.S. federal spending in that period^[22], yet in absolute terms the outlay – about $113 billion appropriated in 2022 and 2023, and tens of billions more in 2024 – is extraordinary. By comparison, the entire annual budget of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is around $100 billion. Policymakers justified this spending as critical to stop Russian aggression in Europe before it possibly draws NATO or other U.S. allies into a wider war.

However, the scale of aid has sparked debate. Supporters argue it is a worthy investment in global stability and deterrence – noting it amounts to roughly one percent of the U.S. budget and no American troops have been required^[22]. Critics, including some in Congress, question the open-ended commitment and demand tighter oversight to ensure funds are used as intended. The Biden administration established a special Ukraine oversight office and reports that, so far, no major instances of U.S. weapons diversion or misuse have been substantiated. Nonetheless, as the war drags on, there is growing public discussion about how long such monumental aid can continue, especially amid U.S. domestic needs.

It’s also worth noting who benefits indirectly from this aid. Much of the money routed to Ukraine actually goes to American defense contractors and workers, who produce the military hardware being sent or replenished. In that sense, U.S. aid to Ukraine functions partly as a stimulus for the U.S. defense industry (Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and others). Similarly, economic aid dollars often come back to the U.S. in the form of procurement contracts for American companies delivering services or goods to Ukraine. These facets do not minimize the cost – the funds are still taxpayer dollars – but they complicate the picture of “aid” as purely giveaway.

After almost three years of war, Ukraine’s reliance on external support remains critical. U.S. aid, by far the largest of any country’s contribution, has helped Ukraine not only survive the onslaught but also reclaim some territory. Whether this level of assistance will continue is uncertain – as of December 2025, the Trump administration (in office since January) has signaled a review and possible scaling back of Ukraine aid. Any drastic cuts, however, would face bipartisan pushback in Congress, given the broad (if not unanimous) consensus that American interests are served by Ukraine’s defense. For now, Ukraine stands as the top recipient of U.S. aid in the 2015–2025 period, propelled almost entirely by the exigencies of war.

Afghanistan: Billions Spent, a Chaotic End

For most of the 2000s and 2010s, Afghanistan was the leading recipient of U.S. foreign aid, driven by America’s 20-year war and reconstruction effort there. Even in the last decade (2015–2021), until the U.S. withdrawal, Afghanistan received enormous support – though its story ended in tragedy and questions about what that spending achieved. From 2015 up to the collapse of the Afghan government in 2021, Washington poured tens of billions of dollars into propping up Afghan security forces, funding development projects, and providing humanitarian relief. This was a continuation of an aid effort that, since 2001, had reached $146 billion in total (in inflation-adjusted terms) by 2023 – the most the U.S. has ever spent to rebuild a single country^[23][24]. (That figure includes both military and civilian aid.) Afghanistan’s significance in U.S. aid rankings is reflected in a striking statistic: from 2001 through 2023, it was the #1 cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having surpassed even Israel in total dollars received during those years of war^[23].

U.S. aid to Afghanistan in the 2015–2021 period primarily had two prongs: military aid to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), and civilian aid to support governance and development. On the military side, the U.S. was spending roughly $4 billion per year in the late 2010s to train, equip, and pay Afghanistan’s army and police^[25][26]. This was done through the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) – a special Pentagon fund that covered everything from soldiers’ salaries to purchasing helicopters and ammunition for Afghan forces^[25]. Between 2001 and 2020, the U.S. disbursed about $72.7 billion in military aid to Afghanistan (in current dollars)^[27], and a large chunk of that came in the surge years of 2010–2014. After 2015, the annual military aid tapered down somewhat as international troops withdrew, but it remained substantial. The Afghan state’s entire ability to fight the Taliban insurgency depended on these U.S. funds – in fact, U.S. aid covered an estimated 75–80% of Afghanistan’s security expenditures each year^[28][29].

On the civilian side, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other agencies were providing roughly $800 million to $1 billion per year in economic aid during the 2015–20 period (figures varied year to year). Programs focused on infrastructure, education, healthcare, and building government capacity. For example, U.S. aid helped construct roads and power grids, stood up schools (including increasing access for girls), and trained civil servants. Humanitarian aid was also part of the mix, especially during drought years and internal displacement crises. While smaller than the military aid, this civilian assistance was still significant; combined with other donors, it kept Afghanistan’s fragile economy afloat.

Tragically, despite these massive investments, the Afghan government and military collapsed in August 2021 soon after U.S. and NATO forces withdrew. The Taliban rapidly seized Kabul, undoing two decades of international state-building efforts. The sudden fall cast a harsh light on the efficacy of U.S. aid. Observers noted that corruption, poor planning, and unrealistic timelines had undermined many aid projects. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) – a U.S. government watchdog – had warned for years of waste and fraud in aid spending. For instance, the U.S. supplied the Afghan army with hundreds of vehicles and aircraft that it struggled to maintain, and built infrastructure that proved unsustainable^[30]. The collapse demonstrated that the Afghan security forces, despite all the equipment and training, lacked morale and sufficient autonomy once U.S. air and contractor support was gone. In stark terms, the Taliban took back Afghanistan in a matter of weeks, after the U.S. had spent 20 years and billions trying to stand up a pro-U.S. government. One analysis noted it took the Taliban only about four months to conquer the country following the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal – a disheartening outcome given the $72+ billion in military aid provided to Afghan forces since 2001^[31].

After the Taliban takeover, the nature of U.S. aid shifted dramatically. Virtually all direct financial aid to the Afghan government was halted (since the U.S. does not recognize the Taliban regime). However, the Afghan people still face dire needs, so the U.S. continued as a leading donor of humanitarian aid – now channeled exclusively through the United Nations and NGOs. In late 2021 and 2022, as Afghanistan’s economy cratered, the U.S. provided emergency food and health assistance to prevent famine, allocating nearly $3 billion for humanitarian relief in Afghanistan and for Afghan refugees^[32]. This made Afghanistan one of the top recipients of U.S. humanitarian aid in 2022–2023 (alongside countries like Yemen and Syria). Yet even this aid faced challenges: in 2023, USAID had to pause food aid deliveries after discovering large-scale theft and diversion of supplies in Taliban-controlled areas^[33][34]. It underscores how fraught delivering aid can be in a country where the U.S. has adversarial relations with the de facto authorities.

Afghanistan’s case raises hard questions. Over $100 billion spent on nation-building did not prevent the return of Taliban rule, leading to debates about what went wrong. Were the goals too ambitious? Was oversight too lax? SIGAR’s reports to Congress highlighted issues like money being siphoned off by warlords and contractors. For example, the U.S. military aid included about $18.6 billion worth of weapons and equipment provided to Afghan forces from 2005–2021^[35]; much of this ended up in Taliban hands or was lost. The legacy of U.S. aid in Afghanistan is mixed – it did bring improvements in life expectancy, education, and infrastructure for a time, but many gains are now at risk under the Taliban.

In terms of the 2015–2025 period, if one tallies all U.S. funding (military, economic, humanitarian) directed to Afghanistan or its people, the total is likely on par with (or even above) what Israel received in the same timeframe. By the end of 2023, Afghanistan had cumulatively received about $145.9 billion since 2001, the most of any country^[23]. Even limiting to the last decade, the figure easily runs into tens of billions. This puts Afghanistan as #2 on our list of top aid recipients in the past ten years. The Afghanistan experience illustrates that massive financial support alone cannot guarantee a stable allied government or victory over insurgency – a lesson U.S. policymakers are keenly aware of as they consider aid strategies in other conflict zones.

Israel: Longtime Top Recipient and Unique Partner

The State of Israel has been the single largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II, a reflection of the close U.S.-Israel relationship over the past seven decades^[36]. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the U.S. has provided Israel over $300 billion in assistance since its founding in 1948^[36]. What sets Israel apart is that today virtually all of its aid comes as military assistance grants, and the amount is very large and steady each year. From 2015 through 2025, Israel received roughly $3–4 billion in U.S. aid annually, almost entirely for defense. This steady support makes Israel one of the top recipients in any given year (often the top recipient before Ukraine’s recent surge).

A pivotal moment came in 2016, when the U.S. and Israel signed a 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) committing $38 billion in U.S. military aid for FY2019–2028^[37][38]. Under this MOU – the largest U.S. aid package ever to any country – the U.S. pledges to provide $3.3 billion per year in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) plus $500 million per year for missile defense cooperation, totaling $3.8 billion annually^[38]. (Congress must still appropriate the funds each year, but both parties have consistently done so.) For context, Israel’s population is about 9 million, and its GDP per capita is on par with some European countries – yet it receives more U.S. aid than any other nation except recently wartime Ukraine. Most of this aid is provided as grants, not loans, meaning Israel does not have to pay it back^[39]. By agreement, Israel uses the FMF money to buy American-made weapons and equipment, effectively funneling the funds to U.S. defense contractors – a point often noted by proponents to show the aid benefits U.S. industry as well^[40]. (Notably, Israel historically had a special permission to spend around 26% of FMF on purchases from its own domestic defense firms, a unique perk now being phased out under the current MOU^[41][40].)

Aid Uses and Strategic Rationale

Why does Israel receive such exceptional support? U.S. leaders have long viewed aiding Israel as crucial to Middle East stability and to maintaining Israel’s “Qualitative Military Edge” (QME) – its ability to deter and defeat any regional adversary^[42]. The U.S. law on QME, first passed in 2008, legally requires ensuring Israel’s military superiority in the region^[43]. In practice, this means the U.S. often gives Israel early access to top-end weaponry and, at times, even limits arms sales to Arab states to preserve Israel’s edge^[42]. For example, Israel was the first country in the Middle East to receive the advanced F‑35 stealth fighter jet. It now has a fleet of 50 F‑35s (the only F‑35s in the region) courtesy of U.S. supply^[42]. When the U.S. sells weapons to other Middle Eastern partners, it has on occasion included extra equipment for Israel or delayed the sales, so that Israel retains superiority^[42]. This has led some analysts to quip that Israel enjoys veto power (de facto) over certain U.S. arms sales to third countries, though formally it’s the U.S. making the decision in line with QME policy.

Nearly all current U.S. aid to Israel goes into its military capabilities – funding the purchase of fighter jets, missile defense systems, armored vehicles, precision munitions, and more. Israel’s military is widely considered the most advanced in the Middle East, thanks in no small part to decades of American support. As one illustration, about 20% of Israel’s defense budget in the years before 2023 was effectively financed by U.S. aid^[44]. The aid has enabled Israel to field a formidable Air Force equipped with U.S.-built F‑15, F‑16, and now F‑35 aircraft, and multilayered air defense shield co-developed with the U.S. (the famous Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow systems are joint projects supported by that $500 million/year U.S. missile defense allocation)^[45]. In fact, since the 1980s the U.S. has even pre-positioned a strategic stockpile of weapons in Israel – worth $1.2 billion as of a few years ago – which Israel can access in emergencies^[46]. All of this underscores the unique military partnership that has evolved.

Israel has used American-supplied arms in numerous conflicts, often with tacit U.S. approval. In recent years, Israeli jets and drones (largely U.S.-funded) have struck targets in Syria to thwart Iranian arms transfers, hit Hezbollah positions in Lebanon, and even reportedly carried out strikes against Iran-allied Houthi forces in Yemen^[47][48].

Israeli forces also rely extensively on U.S.-supplied weaponry in operations against Hamas and other militant groups. Supporters of the bilateral relationship characterize it as symbiotic: Israel receives the military capacity to ensure its security, while the United States gains a highly capable regional partner able to counter shared adversaries without the direct deployment of U.S. forces. Critics, however, challenge this framing. They argue that some of the cited “shared threats” are overstated or strategically constructed, and that U.S. support has at times enabled Israeli territorial or military expansion. These critics further point to the role of organized lobbying efforts, including pro-Israel advocacy groups such as AIPAC, in shaping congressional support for sustained and largely unconditional aid.

Recent Developments – Gaza War Aid

The longstanding U.S. support for Israel faced renewed scrutiny during the 2023–2025 Gaza war. After Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack (which killed about 1,200 Israelis), Israel launched a massive military campaign in Gaza. The U.S. firmly backed Israel’s right to respond and moved quickly to bolster its ally. Since the war began, U.S. military aid to Israel has surged to extraordinary levels. In addition to the baseline $3.8 billion annual aid, Congress approved an $8.7 billion emergency package in April 2024 to resupply Israel’s Iron Dome interceptors, artillery shells, and other munitions^[49][50]. All told, between regular appropriations and special supplements, the U.S. enacted at least $16.3 billion in direct military aid for Israel in the first year of the Gaza war (Oct 2023–Oct 2024)^[49]. Of that, about $6.7 billion was devoted specifically to air and missile defense systems to protect Israel from rockets^[49][51].

Beyond money, the U.S. undertook a logistical feat to keep Israel supplied during the conflict. By May 2025, the Pentagon had delivered 90,000 tons of weapons and equipment to Israel via over 800 cargo flights and 140 ship cargos^[52]. American stockpiles of ammunition were drawn down to rush bombs, guided rockets, and spare parts to the Israel Defense Forces. As one defense analyst put it, Israel could not have sustained its Gaza operations – or expanded strikes into Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen – at their ferocity without U.S. support^[53][54]. A joint study by the Costs of War Project at Brown University and the Quincy Institute found that as of October 2025, the U.S. had supplied Israel with at least $21.7 billion in military aid since the Gaza war began^[55]. This figure includes not only appropriated funds but also the value of weapons transferred from U.S. inventories. That two-year total is nearly three times Israel’s pre-war annual aid level^[56][57]. It highlights how U.S. “support” during crises can rapidly escalate the taxpayer commitment. (Notably, the same study pointed out that the U.S. itself spent an additional $10–12 billion on military operations in the Middle East – such as naval deployments and even exchanges of fire with Iranian proxies like the Houthis – that it undertook in tandem with supporting Israel^[58]. In other words, the spillover costs of backing Israel in war extend beyond the direct aid.)

The Gaza war also reignited debates about conditions on U.S. aid. By law (the Leahy Law), the U.S. is supposed to withhold security assistance from foreign forces that commit gross human rights violations^[59]. Some human rights groups argued this should apply to Israeli strikes causing extensive civilian casualties in Gaza. However, U.S. officials largely rejected those calls, emphasizing that Israel has a right to self-defense and that Washington was seeking assurances (non-binding) that Israel would minimize harm to civilians. In practice, Washington imposed no new hard conditions on the billions in aid, aside from quietly urging adherence to international law. This contrasts with how the U.S. sometimes treats other aid recipients; for example, a portion of aid to Egypt is conditioned on human rights improvements (and occasionally withheld). Israel’s aid, by political consensus, has remained unconditional in terms of usage – a reflection of Israel’s strong support in Congress and its unique status as a close ally.

Another unique aspect is that Israel’s aid is guaranteed via the multi-year MOU, which is not true for most countries. This gives Israel budgetary certainty and reduces annual wrangling. In fact, as part of the 2016 MOU deal, Israel agreed not to lobby Congress for additional funds each year beyond the agreed $3.8 billion^[60]. (Previously, pro-Israel lawmakers would often add extra money for Israeli programs on top of the base aid.) Israel also agreed to stop using a fraction of U.S. aid to buy fuel for its military – all aid now must go to weaponry^[41]. These concessions were made to secure the historic $38 billion package, illustrating how even a wealthy, militarily capable nation like Israel greatly values U.S. assistance.

From 2015 to 2025, Israel likely received around $40+ billion in U.S. aid when all sources are counted. That includes the regular FMF grants each year (~$3–4 billion) plus supplemental wartime aid after 2023. This puts Israel as the third-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid in that decade – and it was #1 in years prior to 2022. But the significance of U.S. aid to Israel cannot be measured just by dollars. Israel “stands apart,” as one analysis noted, because no other country gets such a blank-check of advanced weaponry or has comparable influence on U.S. aid policymaking^[61]. The U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is often described as ironclad, and that is backed up by the consistent flow of money and arms.

It’s worth mentioning the political consensus around aid to Israel. For decades, support for Israel has been strong in both parties, so aid packages face little opposition in Congress. Media coverage of routine aid tends to be minimal; for instance, the renewal of the $3.8 billion annual aid under the MOU is usually reported matter-of-factly. Only in unusual moments – such as debates over funding an extra Iron Dome replenishment or in the context of Gaza war civilian tolls – does Israel’s aid attract more critical attention. By and large, Israel’s aid flies under the radar in U.S. domestic politics, viewed as a given. Yet, especially in the wake of the Gaza conflict’s devastation, there is a growing chorus (albeit still a minority view in Congress) questioning whether some conditions or greater oversight should accompany the billions going to Israel. How that discussion evolves may shape the next MOU after 2028.

Israel remains a cornerstone of U.S. foreign aid strategy, representing America’s enduring practice of giving generous military assistance to a key ally. The benefits to Israel’s security are tangible and immediate, while the benefits to the U.S. are often described in strategic terms – a stable democratic ally in a volatile region, a deterrent against hostile regimes, and a testing ground for U.S. military technology (the two nations often collaborate on defense tech). On the other side of the ledger, the U.S. taxpayer carries a burden: billions spent and borrowed, and a degree of complicity when U.S.-supplied arms are used in ways that spark international controversy. As our focus shifts from the top three, Israel’s case underscores how foreign aid, especially military aid, is as much about geopolitical priorities as it is about assisting those in need.

Other Major Aid Recipients (Honorable Mentions)

Beyond the top three, several other countries have received significant U.S. aid between 2015 and 2025. Rounding out the “top ten” recipients, we find a mix of long-standing allies and countries facing humanitarian crises:

• Egypt: Since the late 1970s, Egypt has been one of the largest recipients of U.S. aid, second only to Israel in the Middle East. It receives about $1.3 billion in FMF military aid every year (a figure essentially unchanged for decades) plus a few hundred million in economic aid^[62][63]. This aid was a reward for Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and is meant to maintain Egypt’s stability and pro-West orientation. In the last decade, that pattern held: roughly $1.5 billion annually to Egypt, even as the U.S. occasionally withheld small portions over human rights concerns. Egypt uses the funds to buy American weaponry – for example, it has one of the world’s largest fleets of U.S.-built M1 Abrams tanks and F-16 fighters (over 200 of each) thanks in part to U.S. aid^[64][65]. While governance in Egypt has been autocratic, U.S. policymakers have largely deemed maintaining the Egypt-Israel peace and cooperation on counterterrorism worth the continued aid.
• Jordan: Another Middle Eastern ally, Jordan has received around $1 billion (or more) in U.S. aid per year in recent years. Jordan’s aid is a roughly even split of economic and military assistance. A close partner in fighting ISIS and hosting refugees, Jordan signed a memorandum with the U.S. in 2018 (renewed in 2022) guaranteeing a multi-year aid package of over $1 billion annually. In FY 2023, Jordan was among the top recipients, receiving significant U.S. funds^[14]. The money helps bolster Jordan’s armed forces and supports development projects in a country lacking natural resources. U.S. aid has also been crucial for Jordan to care for Syrian refugees – over 1 million of whom took shelter there during the Syrian civil war. Washington considers Jordan’s stability a bulwark against regional chaos, hence the consistent aid.
• Iraq: Although U.S. combat troops left Iraq in 2011, aid to Iraq ramped up again mid-decade to help Baghdad fight the ISIS insurgency. From 2014 onward, the U.S. provided Iraq with billions in military assistance (including arms and training for the Iraqi Army and Kurdish Peshmerga) as well as humanitarian aid for displaced Iraqis. During 2015–2017, Congress established the Iraq Train and Equip Fund and funneled over $5 billion to support Iraq’s war against ISIS. By late 2010s and early 2020s, annual aid levels dropped, but the U.S. still gave Iraq security aid (through FMF and other programs) and civilian aid to help reconstruction. A State Department fact sheet in 2023 noted the U.S. had invested nearly $3.5 billion in economic aid to help Iraq recover from ISIS^[66]. Including military aid, Iraq’s total likely exceeds that. Thus, over the decade, Iraq has remained in the upper tier of U.S. aid targets. However, aid to Iraq is now lower than in the 2000s (when the U.S. was spending heavily on post-invasion reconstruction). Continuing challenges – an unstable political system and Iranian influence – sometimes complicate U.S. aid efforts, but Iraq’s strategic importance ensures ongoing support.
• Ethiopia: The largest recipient of U.S. aid in sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopia has received substantial assistance for both development and, more recently, humanitarian relief. In FY 2023, Ethiopia was actually the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid globally, getting about $1.8 billion^[13][12]. A lot of this was emergency aid responding to a devastating civil war in the Tigray region (2020–2022) and widespread drought. The U.S. provided food aid to millions of Ethiopians facing famine-like conditions during the conflict. Ethiopia has also long been a focus of health and economic programs (for example, under PEPFAR for HIV/AIDS and Feed the Future for agriculture). The sheer population of Ethiopia (over 110 million) and the severity of recent crises drove the aid volume upward. However, in 2023 the U.S. suspended food aid to Ethiopia after discovering systemic theft of aid supplies, illustrating the complexities of large aid operations^[33]. Still, Ethiopia remains a major U.S. aid partner, with efforts ongoing to resume assistance in a more controlled way.
• Syria: While the U.S. does not give aid to the Assad regime, it has been the leading donor of humanitarian aid for Syrians since that country’s civil war began in 2011. Over the last decade, the U.S. spent many billions on food, medical care, and shelter for Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons. This includes aid inside opposition-held parts of Syria and support to countries like Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon hosting Syrian refugees. For example, U.S. humanitarian funding for the Syria crisis often exceeded $1 billion per year at the height of the war. In addition, the U.S. provided some stabilization aid to areas previously liberated from ISIS in northeast Syria (to rebuild water systems, etc.). By FY 2023, Syria likely ranked among the top recipients purely due to humanitarian need, even though it’s not tallied as funds “to Syria” in a traditional sense (much of it goes through UN agencies). The protracted conflict and ongoing humanitarian disaster have kept Syria as a significant focus of U.S. foreign aid dollars.
• Yemen: Another crisis-driven case, Yemen has received large amounts of U.S. humanitarian aid during its ongoing war and famine. Since 2015, Yemen’s civil war has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian emergencies. The U.S. has contributed heavily to UN relief appeals for Yemen, providing food aid, support for clinics, and other life-saving assistance. In some years, U.S. humanitarian aid to Yemen topped $500–700 million. There was also a small military aid component earlier in the decade aimed at counterterrorism (against AQAP) and supporting the Saudi-led coalition, but after Saudi airstrikes caused civilian casualties, the U.S. cut off offensive military aid by late 2010s. Overall, Yemen would rank high in U.S. aid by virtue of the sustained humanitarian response, even though like Syria this aid is delivered through NGOs rather than any government.
• Pakistan: During the first half of the 2010s, Pakistan was among top U.S. aid recipients, but that changed toward the end of the decade. From 2015 to about 2017, Pakistan was still receiving substantial U.S. funds – including Coalition Support Funds (CSF) reimbursements for its counterterror operations (hundreds of millions of dollars per year) and some economic aid under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act. However, relations soured over Pakistan’s ties to the Taliban, and by 2018 the Trump administration suspended most security aid to Pakistan. Consequently, Pakistan’s rank fell. Still, cumulatively, Pakistan likely received on the order of $4–5 billion during 2015–2025, buoyed by the early part of that period. Historically a major ally during the War on Terror, Pakistan is an example of a country where U.S. aid was used as leverage and then cut when policy diverged. Recent signs of U.S.-Pakistan rapprochement (like humanitarian aid for floods in 2022) could see assistance rise again, but it remains below past peaks.
• Others: Other countries that consistently receive U.S. aid include Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and South Sudan in Africa – largely for health (e.g., anti-HIV and malaria programs) and humanitarian aid in conflict zones. In Asia, Bangladesh and Afghanistan (post-2021 humanitarian) have been major recipients for humanitarian and Rohingya refugee support (in Bangladesh’s case). In the Western Hemisphere, Haiti has long been a top aid recipient due to chronic poverty and disasters (e.g., post-2016 hurricane and the 2021 earthquake). And globally, the U.S. funds certain programs that benefit many countries at once – for example, contributions to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, and to UN agencies like the World Food Programme. While these aren’t “country aid” per se, they represent significant U.S. expenditures abroad for global causes.

It’s important to note the shifting landscape of top aid recipients. If we had looked at, say, 2010, countries like Iraq and Pakistan were near the top due to the wars. In 2025, the list is very different, with Ukraine and Ethiopia among the leaders due to new conflicts and crises. U.S. foreign aid is highly responsive to geopolitical shifts – allies in war or countries in crisis can leap to the forefront. Yet some names (Israel, Egypt, Jordan) remain constant, reflecting enduring strategic partnerships.

But Why?

The period 2015–2025 vividly demonstrates both the continuity and dynamism of U.S. foreign aid. On one hand, longstanding aid relationships – like those with Israel, Egypt, and Jordan – continued at robust levels, anchored by strategic interests and international agreements that have changed little in decades. On the other hand, new emergencies redefined the aid landscape: a brutal invasion in Europe (Ukraine) and a chaotic end to a 20-year war (Afghanistan) led to enormous, unforeseen outlays of U.S. support. These cases underscore that foreign aid is not a static budget line, but a tool that the U.S. expands or redirects as world events demand.

Several key insights emerge from this deep dive:

• The United States uses foreign aid as a major instrument of foreign policy, whether to reinforce allies (as with Israel’s qualitative edge and Egypt’s peace commitment) or to respond to aggressors and humanitarian catastrophes (as with Ukraine and Syria). Aid is thus both altruistic and self-interested: it can alleviate suffering and bolster global stability in ways that ultimately serve U.S. security and values.
• Military aid dominates the largest recipients. In the top three (Ukraine, Afghanistan, Israel), American aid primarily took the form of guns, training, and financing for weapons. This reflects the fact that U.S. aid flows are heaviest where conflict and security issues are at stake. Economic and humanitarian aid, while significant in absolute terms, tend to be more widely dispersed among many countries in smaller amounts. Big-ticket military aid is concentrated in a few places.
• The effectiveness and oversight of aid vary. The Israel case shows a highly effective use (from Israel’s perspective) – the aid has unquestionably enhanced Israel’s military might and perhaps deterred major state-to-state wars. But it also raises moral hazards (U.S.-supplied arms being used in controversial campaigns). Afghanistan, by contrast, revealed the limits of what aid can achieve without local political progress; vast sums did not translate into a sustainable state. Ukraine’s aid, still ongoing, appears effective militarily but has unknown long-term outcomes. These examples illustrate that throwing money at a problem does not guarantee success – aid must be accompanied by sound strategy and accountability. Encouragingly, there is increasing emphasis on monitoring (e.g. robust oversight for Ukraine aid, SIGAR’s audits in Afghanistan, etc.), though challenges remain, especially in warzones.
• Domestic impact: Foreign aid remains a tiny fraction of U.S. spending, yet it often looms large in public imagination. Polls find Americans vastly overestimate aid’s share of the budget and often view aid skeptically^[67]. In truth, as we saw, it’s usually around 1% of federal outlays^[4]. But that 1% can be very impactful abroad. One could argue U.S. foreign aid helped Ukraine blunt a superpower invasion, helped millions of Afghans attend school (albeit briefly), saved countless lives in famine-stricken Yemen and Ethiopia, and maintained a peace between Israel and its neighbors that has lasted over 40 years. These are intangible returns on investment. Meanwhile, critics note that some aid money indirectly flows back to U.S. defense companies or corrupt officials overseas, raising questions of who really benefits. Both views have merit, which is why neutral, fact-based analysis of aid is vital – to ensure it’s serving its intended goals.
• Financing aid: The discussion highlighted how U.S. aid is financed by debt. This means the burden of today’s aid falls partly on future generations. Paying interest to foreign holders of U.S. debt (like China) because of deficit-funded aid is an ironic twist – essentially borrowing from Peter to pay Paul overseas. This doesn’t mean aid isn’t worthwhile, but it underscores the importance of wise prioritization. As the U.S. faces its own fiscal strains, the sustainability of aid at such high levels may come under scrutiny. Indeed, in 2025 the new administration signaled possible cuts to some foreign assistance. How that reconciles with ongoing global needs will be a key issue to watch.

Ultimately, foreign aid is an expression of American leadership – for better or worse. It is the U.S. saying “we are willing to invest in other nations’ futures, not just our own.” The last decade’s deep dive shows the noble side of that leadership (feeding the hungry, supporting democracies under attack) and the realpolitik side (arming friends to prevail in conflicts). It also shows that outcomes can be unpredictable: allies can fall apart despite our billions, and unexpected crises can demand sudden billions more.

As citizens and readers, understanding where these taxpayer funds go is crucial. Foreign aid may not dominate headlines, but it has a profound impact on global lives and on America’s role in the world. By examining cases like Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Israel, we become better informed about the costs and benefits of U.S. foreign aid – knowledge that is essential for a healthy democracy and wise policy going forward.

References

1. DeSilver, D. (2025, February 6). What the data says about US foreign aid. Pew Research Center. ^[3][14]
2. USAFacts. (2025, Mar 14). How much money has the US given Ukraine since Russia’s invasion? ^[10][15]
3. Maizland, L., & Susman, T. (2025). U.S. Aid to Israel in Four Charts. Council on Foreign Relations. ^[36][68]
4. Spetalnick, M. (2016, September 15). U.S., Israel sign $38 billion military aid package. Reuters. ^[37][38]
5. Singh, K. (2025, December 29). Pentagon announces $8.6 billion Boeing contract for F-15 jets for Israel. Reuters. ^[1]
6. Hartung, W. (2025, October 7). U.S. Military Aid and Arms Transfers to Israel, Oct 2023 – Sept 2025. Costs of War Project, Brown Univ. ^[55][56]
7. SIPRI. (2021, Aug 23). 20 years of US military aid to Afghanistan. (N. Tian, author). Stockholm Int’l Peace Research Institute. ^[25][31]
8. USAFacts. (2025). What countries receive the most foreign aid from the US? ^[12][23]
9. Cornwell, S., & Wolf, J. (2011, Jan 29). Factbox: Most U.S. aid to Egypt goes to military. Reuters. ^[62]
10. Chatham House. (2025, Oct 24). Despite the Gaza ceasefire, the Israel–Houthi conflict may resume. (J. Pollock & D. Symon). ^[47][48]

^{[1] [2]} Pentagon announces $8.6 billion Boeing contract for F-15 jets for Israel | Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/pentagon-announces-86-billion-boeing-contract-f-15-jets-israel-2025-12-29

^{[3] [4] [5] [8] [14] [67]} What the data says about US foreign aid | Pew Research Center

^[6] United States foreign aid – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid

^{[7] [12] [13] [23] [24]} What countries receive the most foreign aid from the US? | USAFacts

https://usafacts.org/answers/what-countries-receive-the-most-foreign-aid-from-the-us/country/united-states

^[9] The Federal Government Has Borrowed Trillions. Who Owns All that Debt?

^{[10] [11] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]} How much money has the US given Ukraine? | USAFacts

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-money-has-the-us-given-ukraine-since-russias-invasion

^{[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [35]} 20 years of US military aid to Afghanistan | SIPRI

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2021/20-years-us-military-aid-afghanistan

^[32] Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy In Brief – Congress.gov

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45122

^[33] how USAid freeze sent shockwaves through Ethiopia – The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/ng-interactive/2025/feb/21/the-impact-has-been-devastating-how-usaid-freeze-sent-shockwaves-through-ethiopia

^[34] Ethiopia: Tigray – Humanitarian Outcomes

https://humanitarianoutcomes.org/projects/core/ethiopia-tigray

^{[36] [39] [40] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [49] [50] [51] [52] [59] [61] [68]} U.S. Aid to Israel in Four Charts | Council on Foreign Relations

https://www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts

^{[37] [38] [41] [60]} U.S., Israel sign $38 billion military aid package | Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-israel-sign-38-billion-military-aid-package-idUSKCN11K2CI

^{[47] [48]} Despite the Gaza ceasefire, the Israel–Houthi conflict may resume | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/the-world-today/2025-09/despite-gaza-ceasefire-israel-houthi-conflict-may-resume

^{[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]} $21.7 billion in US military aid has fueled Israel’s war on Gaza | Responsible Statecraft

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-aid-israel-gaza

^{[62] [63] [64] [65]} Factbox: Most U.S. aid to Egypt goes to military | Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/factbox-most-us-aid-to-egypt-goes-to-military-idUSTRE70S0IN

^[66] U.S.-Iraq Higher Coordinating Committee Fact Sheet on U.S. …

https://2021-2025.state.gov/u-s-iraq-higher-coordinating-committee-fact-sheet-on-u-s-foreign-assistance-to-iraq