Respondents were informed that the US has been spending about $15.6 billion a year on aid for, “caring for people who urgently need food, medical care, or shelter because they are victims of a disaster like famine, a flood, or a war.” They were asked whether they think the US should increase spending, keep it the same, decrease it, or eliminate it, along a seven-point scale. 

A majority of 56% support keeping spending the same (28%) or increasing it (28%), including 70% of Democrats and 61% of independents. A majority of Republicans (57%) prefer spending be reduced, but this includes 16% who want to spend “a little less”, and 36% who want to spend “somewhat less” (24%) or “none at all” (12%).

Respondents were informed that the US has been spending about $16.1 billion a year to, “treat diseases (including HIV and malaria); prevent the spread of diseases; improve health outcomes (especially for mothers and children); train doctors and nurses; ensure access to clean water.” They were asked whether they think the US should increase spending, keep it the same, decrease it, or eliminate it, along a seven-point scale. 

A majority of 64% support keeping spending the same (32%) or increasing it (32%), including 79% of Democrats and 67% of independents, and half of Republicans. Among the half of Republicans who want to spend less, 15% want to spend “a little less”, and just 41% want to spend “somewhat less” (30%) or “none at all” (11%).

Respondents were informed that the US has been spending about $16.1 billion a year to, “help less developed countries improve their food production, develop their infrastructure, and build their private enterprises and financial systems.” They were asked whether they think the US should increase spending, keep it the same, decrease it, or eliminate it, along a seven-point scale. 

A majority of 56% support keeping spending the same (30%) or increasing it (26%), including 70% of Democrats and 56% of independents. A majority of Republicans (57%) prefer spending be reduced, but this includes 19% who want to spend “a little less”, and 38% who want to spend “somewhat less” (25%) or “none at all” (13%).

Respondents were informed that the US has been spending about $1.1 billion a year to help, “less developed countries to train teachers, encourage school attendance (especially for girls) such as by offering school lunches, and improve literacy.” They were asked whether they think the US should increase spending, keep it the same, decrease it, or eliminate it, along a seven-point scale. 

A bipartisan majority of 67% want to keep spending the same (30%) or increase it (26%), including 54% of Republicans, 81% of Democrats and 71% of independents.

Respondents were informed that the US has been spending about $1.4 billion a year, “to help countries preserve their environment, reduce pollution, transition to energy sources that produce less or no pollution, and prepare better for natural disasters.” They were asked whether they think the US should increase spending, keep it the same, decrease it, or eliminate it, along a seven-point scale. 

A majority of 65% support keeping spending the same (32%) or increasing it (33%), including 82% of Democrats and 65% of independents. A bare majority of Republicans (51%) prefer spending be reduced, but this includes 14% who want to spend “a little less”, and 37% who want to spend “somewhat less” (20%) or “none at all” (17%).

Respondents were informed that the US has been spending about $2.3 billion a year “to further the development of democracy, human rights, a free press, and the rule of law,” and that, “nearly all of this goes to non-profits and international organizations with specialized skills, rather than directly to foreign governments.” They were asked whether they think the US should increase spending, keep it the same, decrease it, or eliminate it, along a seven-point scale. 

A majority of 60% support keeping spending the same (34%) or increasing it (26%), including 76% of Democrats and 55% of independents. A small majority of Republicans (53%) prefer spending be reduced, but this includes 14% who want to spend “a little less”, and 39% want to spend “somewhat less” (19%) or “none at all” (20%).

Respondents evaluated a proposal for, “abolishing USAID and putting its programs under the direct control of the State Department.” They were informed that USAID works closely with the State Department to align its programs with US foreign policy, but that the two agencies have distinct missions: “While the State Department focuses on managing US foreign policy and diplomatic relations, USAID focuses on managing aid programs by employing specialized experts in disaster relief, health, education, environment, and democracy.”

Both arguments in favor and against were found convincing by majorities, including majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.

Asked for their final recommendation, a majority of 58% oppose abolishing USAID, instead preferring that it be kept as an independent agency. This includes 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents. But a majority of Republicans support the proposal (60%).

Respondents evaluated whether foreign aid should be distributed more through bilateral channels to specific countries, or more through multilateral institutions like the UN. They were provided definitions for both types of aid, and informed that bilateral aid currently makes up about two-thirds of foreign aid.

The argument in favor of, “shifting the aid balance toward working more through bilateral channels,” was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of three-quarters. The argument in favor of, “shifting the aid balance toward working more through multilateral channels,” was found convincing by a bipartisan majority of two-thirds.

In the end, keeping the current balance — two thirds to bilateral and one third to multilateral — is preferred by 39% (Republicans 34%, Democrats 46%). A third support increasing the amount channeled bilaterally (Republicans 36%, Democrats 32%), and 26% prefer shifting the balance to multilateral institutions.