KFF Health Tracking Poll February 2025: The Public’s Views on Global Health and USAID

Key Takeaways

• As the Trump administration takes steps to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and freeze most foreign aid, including global health funding, the latest KFF Health Tracking Poll finds that a majority of the public expect this will lead to increased humanitarian and health crises globally while somewhat fewer expect the move to alleviate domestic fiscal issues. At least six in ten adults say that getting rid of USAID is likely to lead to more illness and death in low-income countries (67%) or more humanitarian crises around the world (62%). On the other hand, smaller shares – but still close to half – say getting rid of USAID will likely allow funds to be redirected to domestic programs (47%) or significantly reduce the U.S. budget deficit (47%). Partisans are strongly divided on the impacts of cutting USAID, with Democrats more likely to anticipate negative health and humanitarian consequences globally and Republicans more likely to expect positive fiscal outcomes at home.
• The Trump administration plans to eliminate nearly all of USAID’s foreign aid awards, and though most adults say the U.S. was spending too much on foreign aid before Trump took office, the vast majority of the public do not want aid to be eliminated entirely. Just over one in ten (13%) say that, prior to Trump taking office in January, the U.S. was spending too much on foreign aid, and it should be eliminated entirely. Even among Republicans, the group most likely to say the U.S. was spending too much in this area before President Trump took office this year, scaling back on global health spending is more popular than ending all spending by a two-to-one ratio.
• Overall, there is broad support for the U.S. playing a role in improving the health for people in developing countries, though the share of Republicans saying the U.S. should play a major role in this area has declined since 2016. Half of the public says the U.S. should take a leading or major role in improving health for people in developing countries, while about one-third (36%) say the U.S. should take a “minor role.” Just over half the public says that before Trump took office this year, the U.S. was spending too little (19%) or about the right amount (37%) on these efforts. Partisans divide on the role the U.S. should play and how much the country should spend, with most Republicans saying the U.S. should play a minor or no role and that it spends too much on health in developing countries, while majorities of Democrats want the U.S. to play a leading or major role and say the U.S. spends too little or the right amount. Few across partisans say the U.S. should not play a role at all in improving the health of people in developing countries.
• In addition, the public continues to recognize a benefit of spending money on global health, including preventing rising infectious diseases from spreading to the U.S. A large majority of adults say that spending money on improving health in developing countries helps protect the health of Americans by preventing the spread of infectious diseases, including about nine in ten Democrats (86%) and two-thirds of independents (67%). Republicans are split, with half saying this spending helps Americans in this way (49%), down from 68% in 2016.
• The public’s views on foreign aid may be shaped by misconceptions about its cost. Most U.S. adults overestimate the share of the federal budget that goes towards foreign aid, and attitudes towards spending shift once people know more information. Nearly nine in ten (86%) adults overestimate the share of the federal budget spent on foreign aid, saying on average that the U.S. spends about a quarter (26%) of its budget on foreign aid. And, after hearing that foreign aid accounts for about one percent of the federal budget, the share of the public who say that the U.S. spends too much on foreign aid drops more than twenty percentage points from six in ten (58%) to one-third (34%). This pattern is consistent across partisans.

Most U.S. Adults Say Downsizing USAID Will Lead to Health and Humanitarian Crises; About Half Say It Will Alleviate the Federal Deficit

Since the start of his second term, President Trump and his administration have taken steps to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, and freeze most foreign aid, including global health funding. So far, the administration has removed the USAID website, let go of most of the agency’s staff, and hundreds of the agency’s awards and contracts have been canceled. There have been several legal challenges to the Trump administration’s actions, and as of this poll finding, cases are continuing to make their way through the courts. These executive actions have far-reaching implications for the U.S.’s involvement in global health.

News of the Trump administration’s action on USAID seems to be reaching people across the political spectrum as majorities across partisans, including about seven in ten Harris voters (71%) and Trump voters (68%), say they have heard “a lot” or “some” about the administration’s plans.

Most of the public thinks the downsizing of USAID will lead to increased risks to global health, while about half say these cuts will improve national budget issues. Two-thirds of the public overall say that getting rid of USAID will likely lead to more illness and death in low-income countries (67%), including about one-third (32%) who say this is “very likely” and about one-third (35%) who say this is “somewhat likely.” A similar majority says dismantling USAID will likely result in more humanitarian crises around the world (62%), with three in ten saying this is very likely (29%) and one-third (34%) saying it is “somewhat likely.” Much smaller shares – about one in ten (11%) – say either of these outcomes is “not at all likely.”

The public is split on whether they expect the dismantling of USAID to pose a safety issue at home. About half of adults say that eliminating USAID will make the U.S. less safe (52%), including about one in five (22%) who say this is “very likely” and three in ten (29%) who say it is “somewhat likely.” Half of the public says eliminating USAID is “not very likely” (28%) or “not at all likely” (19%) to make the U.S. less safe.

The public is also split on their assessment of the likelihood of some positive consequences of reducing USAID. About half of adults say it is at least somewhat likely that getting rid of USAID will allow funds to be redirected to domestic programs (47%) or significantly reduce the U.S. budget deficit (47%). Smaller shares say either of these outcomes is “very likely” (15% and 12%, respectively). Because foreign aid spending, much of which is provided through USAID, makes up such a small percentage of the overall federal budget, its reduction will not significantly reduce the deficit.

The public is split along party lines in their views on the consequences of dismantling USAID. Large majorities of Democrats say it would lead to health and humanitarian crises and make the U.S. less safe, while at least two-thirds of Republicans say cutting USAID is likely to result in positive effects on domestic fiscal issues. About nine in ten Democrats say ending the agency would likely lead to more illness and death in low-income countries (91%), while about four in ten (42%) Republicans agree. Similarly, about nine in ten Democrats say it will likely lead to more humanitarian crises worldwide (87%). About four in ten (37%) Republicans say the same. Two-thirds of independents say these negative global health consequences are likely.

Larger shares of Democrats also see safety risks, with nearly eight in ten Democrats saying getting rid of USAID will make the U.S. less safe (78%). Half of independents (51%) and one in four Republicans (24%) agree.

Republicans are more aligned with the Trump administration’s rationale for cutting USAID. Two-thirds (67%) say it is likely that this move will significantly reduce the U.S. federal budget deficit, compared to about three in ten (28%) Democrats and about half (46%) of independents. Similarly, seven in ten (72%) Republicans say it is likely ending USAID will allow for funds to be redirected to domestic programs, while smaller shares of independents (45%) and Democrats (27%) agree.

Most of the Public Say the U.S. Spends Too Much on Foreign Aid, But Views Change After Hearing Actual Amount Spent

The Trump administration’s move to cut foreign aid and dismantle USAID is part of the administration’s plan to cut federal spending overall. However, about one percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. The public largely overestimates the share of the budget that goes to foreign aid, with about one in ten (11%) adults correctly estimating the share to be about one percent or less. This pattern is consistent with previous KFF polls.

About nine in ten (86%) incorrectly say foreign aid accounts for at least two percent of the federal budget, including more than half (54%) who believe it makes up more than 10 percent. On average, the public says spending on foreign aid makes up roughly one quarter (26%) of the federal budget. Across partisans, the public overestimates the share of the federal budget allocated for foreign aid. However, Republicans are most likely to overestimate foreign aid spending. On average, Republicans say foreign aid accounts for about 31% of the federal budget, while Democrats and independents estimate it to be around one quarter (23% and 24% respectively).

Amid news of the major cuts to foreign aid by the Trump administration, the poll also asked what the public thought about federal spending abroad prior to President Trump taking office. About six in ten U.S. adults say that prior to President Trump taking office this year, the U.S. was spending “too much” on foreign aid (58%), while about one in ten (11%) say the U.S. spent “too little”, and about three in ten (29%) say the U.S. was spending “about the right amount.”

However, after hearing the factual statement that only about one percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid, the share who say the U.S. is spending “too much” decreased more than twenty percentage points, down to about one-third (34%) of the public who now say the federal government is spending “too much” on foreign aid. In the same vein, the share of the public who now say the U.S. spends “too little” increased by 17 percentage points to about three in ten (28%).

This shift is similar across partisans. After learning that approximately one percent of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid, the share saying the U.S. spends “too much” declines by 31 percentage points among Republicans, 26 percentage points among independents, and 14 percentage points among Democrats.

Despite court orders to release frozen aid funding, the Trump administration continues to withhold nearly all foreign aid and has just eliminated more than 90% of USAID’s contracts and grants for foreign assistance. Ending all foreign aid spending is not a popular position among the U.S. public, with just about one in ten adults (13%) saying the U.S. should do so. Instead, while many say the U.S. is spending too much, most want to see the U.S. scale back rather than end all spending. In fact, the public prefers scaling back spending over ending all spending by a more than three-to-one ratio (43% compared to 13%).

Across partisans, “scaling back spending” on foreign aid is more favorable than “ending all spending.” Half (53%) of Republicans say the U.S. was spending too much on foreign aid and that it should be scaled back, compared to fewer (28%) who say it should be ended completely. Half of independents prefer scaling back spending, while just one in ten (11%) say all spending on foreign aid should end. While Democrats are much more likely to say that the U.S. spends the right amount on foreign aid, among the 29% who say that the U.S. was spending too much, very few (2%) say this funding should cease.

The Public’s Views on the Role of the U.S. in Global Health

President Trump’s “America First” Agenda emphasizes domestic interests, removing the U.S. from the global arena, including when it comes to global health. In addition to the dismantling of USAID, one of Trump’s first executive orders was to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) and to reevaluate and realign U.S. foreign aid, which has led to freezing all foreign aid funding and most programs, limiting the U.S.’s influence and spending on preventing infectious diseases globally. Among the public, there is broad support for the U.S. playing a role in improving health for people in developing countries. Half of the public says that the U.S. should take “the leading role” or “a major role, but not the leading role” in improving health for people in developing countries. About one-third (36%) say the U.S. should take a minor role, while fewer (14%) say the U.S. should not play a role in this area. While Democrats are more likely to want the U.S. to take a leading or major role (69%) in improving the health for people in developing countries, about half of Republicans and key segments of President Trump’s base, including those aligned with the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, favor the U.S. taking a “minor role” in global health. Few across political affiliation say the U.S. should have “no role at all.”

Republicans’ views on the U.S.’s role in global health have shifted since President Trump’s first term. KFF polls from 2016 and 2018 show that about half of Republicans at the time supported the U.S. taking at least a major role in improving global health. In the most recent poll, the share of Republicans who support this role for the U.S. has fallen to about one-third (32%). Additionally, the share of Republicans who say the U.S. should take “no role” in improving the health of people in developing countries has risen from 9% in 2016 to about one in four (24%) currently. At the same time, KFF polling does not find a similar shift among Democrats or independents. About seven in ten Democrats and half of independents have consistently said the U.S. should play a “major” or “leading role” in improving global health.

The U.S. global health funding budget is just $12 billion, or less than 0.1% of the overall federal budget. While the process for funding global health is complex, USAID implements most U.S. global health bilateral assistance. When asked about U.S. spending on global health, the public is more supportive than of foreign aid generally. About six in ten say, prior to President Trump taking office, the U.S. was spending too little (19%) or about the right amount (37%) on efforts to improve health for people in developing countries, while about four in ten (43%) say the U.S. was spending “too much.”

Eliminating all spending on efforts to improve the health of people in foreign countries is unpopular among the public. Few adults (11%) saying the Trump administration should end all spending, while about three in ten (31%) say this funding should be scaled back but not eliminated. Even among Republicans, the group most likely to say the U.S. was spending too much in this area before President Trump took office this year, two in ten (22%) say the Trump administration should eliminate all funding for global health.

Two-thirds of adults (67%) say that spending money on improving health in developing countries helps protect the health of Americans by preventing the spread of infectious diseases, including about nine in ten Democrats (86%) and two-thirds of independents (67%). Republicans are split, with half saying this spending helps Americans in this way (49%) and half saying it does not have much of an impact (51%). Previous KFF polling shows that most U.S. adults say the most important reason the U.S. should spend money on global health is because “it is the right thing to do,” but that many people also believe such spending helps protect Americans from infectious diseases.

Attitudes on the benefits of global health spending among Republicans have shifted. A KFF poll from April 2016 showed large majorities of adults across partisans saying that spending money on improving health in developing countries helps protect the health of Americans by preventing the spread of diseases, including nearly seven in ten Republicans (68%). While the share of Democrats recognizing this benefit has increased slightly since 2016, the share of Republicans saying the same has decreased by 17 percentage points.