The Allies That Weren’t
For years, evangelical Christian charities have been some of the most vocal supporters of Donald Trump, embracing his presidency as a victory for their values. Many believed that his administration’s stance on religious freedom, opposition to abortion, and pushback against LGBTQ+ rights made him a natural ally.
But faith in Trump has now met an inconvenient reality. With the latest round of deep foreign aid cuts, these same charities are reeling as they lose critical funding for their humanitarian missions. In a closed-door meeting, U.S. officials openly touted their success in “zeroing out” foreign assistance, a move that leaves Christian aid organizations scrambling to fill the gap.
It’s a stark lesson in political loyalty: No matter how fervently they supported Trump, these groups are now collateral damage in an administration’s drive to gut foreign aid.
The Scope of the Cuts: Real-World Consequences
The Trump administration has long viewed foreign aid as wasteful spending, and the latest budget reflects that philosophy. The FY 2025 budget proposal slashes U.S. foreign assistance by 28%, including reductions to USAID-funded programs that evangelical charities have long relied on. For organizations such as World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse, and Food for the Hungry, this isn’t just a bureaucratic reshuffling—it’s a direct hit to their ability to deliver food, clean water, and medical aid to the world’s most vulnerable populations.
How Big Are These Cuts?
- Humanitarian Assistance: Down $4 billion from previous funding levels.
- Global Health Programs: Slashed by 23%, affecting maternal and child health initiatives.
- Food Aid & Disaster Relief: Reduced by $2.3 billion, jeopardizing emergency response efforts.
These numbers translate into real suffering: millions fewer meals delivered, fewer clinics stocked with medicine, and thousands left without shelter after natural disasters.
The Evangelical Paradox: Political Loyalty vs. Mission Priorities
This isn’t the first time Trump’s policies have created tension within the evangelical movement. His administration’s hardline immigration policies forced faith-based refugee organizations into moral dilemmas, and his economic policies disproportionately favored the wealthy, leaving working-class evangelicals with little tangible benefit.
But foreign aid cuts strike at the heart of evangelical humanitarian work. For decades, these charities have justified their political alliances by emphasizing their commitment to helping “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40). Now, their ability to do so is being systematically dismantled by the very administration they championed.
Some leaders are beginning to voice concerns. Rich Stearns, former president of World Vision, warned that these cuts could force Christian organizations to turn away people in desperate need. “Our ability to serve is being compromised at a time when global crises are multiplying,” he said in a recent interview. Meanwhile, a senior official at Samaritan’s Purse (an organization led by Franklin Graham, a staunch Trump supporter) admitted privately that “this level of cuts will be impossible to offset through private donations.”
Yet, many evangelical leaders remain publicly silent, reluctant to challenge a political figure they’ve invested so much in.
Why Did Trump Cut Foreign Aid?
To preempt counterarguments, it’s important to acknowledge why these cuts are happening. Trump’s “America First” agenda has always framed foreign aid as a drain on U.S. resources, redirecting funds toward domestic priorities. His administration argues that reducing international assistance will allow for greater military spending and economic stimulus at home.
But this rationale ignores a crucial reality: Many foreign aid initiatives prevent future crises that could require even greater U.S. intervention. By slashing programs that combat famine, disease, and instability, the administration may actually be fostering long-term security risks that will cost the U.S. far more down the road.
Evangelicals and the FAFO Moment
There’s an undeniable irony in watching groups that once celebrated Trump’s policies now struggle because of them. This is a textbook FAFO (Fk Around and Find Out) moment**—one that exposes the contradictions at the heart of evangelical political engagement.
For years, these organizations have told their donors and congregations that supporting Trump was a means to protect Christian values. But what happens when those same political allies prioritize nationalism over humanitarian work?
Will they reassess their alliances? Will they speak out? Or will they remain silent, hoping no one notices the hypocrisy?
What Comes Next?
These budget cuts aren’t just a political inconvenience—they are a humanitarian crisis. Evangelical charities now face difficult choices:
- Seek private donations to fill funding gaps. But can church tithes and corporate sponsors replace billions in government grants?
- Pressure Republican lawmakers. Will they have the political will to push back against Trump’s budget priorities?
- Rethink political alliances. Does loyalty to Trump truly align with their mission, or is it time for a more independent approach?
This moment is a defining test for evangelical humanitarian organizations. Do they continue to prioritize political power, or do they recommit to their core mission—serving the vulnerable, regardless of where the funding comes from?
Because if they don’t act fast, it won’t just be their budgets that are “zeroed out.” It will be their credibility.
FAFO, indeed.