Seven months after a seismic shift in US foreign policy, the Trump administration has redefined how America delivers aid abroad with a strategy that prioritizes national interests.

In Washington, a senior State Department official, Jeremy Lewin, who oversees overseas assistance, humanitarian affairs, and religious freedom, announced that the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has streamlined foreign aid. Under direct State Department control, funding now aligns with President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vision. Lewin claims the system is more efficient, more effective, and more focused on “America First” goals, redirecting billions from programs deemed wasteful toward strategic priorities, especially in the Western Hemisphere.

The move has sparked debate over whether this overhaul truly serves global needs or narrows US influence to a transactional lens. Supporters argue it’s a long-overdue correction to decades of misspent funds. Critics, however, question whether vital humanitarian efforts are being sacrificed for geopolitical gamesmanship.

Donroe Doctrine Targets Strategic Rivals

Let’s dig into the so-called Donroe Doctrine, a term coined over a year ago by The Post, which aims to block adversaries like China and Russia from gaining economic or military footholds in the Americas. It’s a bold pivot, focusing on infrastructure, security, and trade partnerships in Latin America and the Caribbean. This isn’t charity—it’s chess.

Jeremy Lewin didn’t mince words on past failures: “We’d show up and hear, ‘The Russians sell us weapons, the Chinese own our infrastructure — and the Americans send consultants.’” That stings because it’s true. For too long, while China built roads and Huawei pushed telecom dominance, the US funded feel-good initiatives with little strategic payoff, the New York Post reported.

Now, the administration is pouring resources into countering Chinese influence, from AI projects to communications networks, while partnering with American firms over NGOs. A $150 million deal with California-based Zipline in West Africa to deliver medical supplies across five countries outmaneuvered a Chinese rival. Similar efforts are underway in Latin America and the Indo-Pacific, treating aid as a venture capital fund to maximize returns.

Western Hemisphere Takes Center Stage

Historically, the Western Hemisphere got scraps—sometimes as little as 5% of the $75 billion annual foreign aid budget, according to Lewin. That’s a disgrace when our own backyard has been neglected as China and Russia crept in. The Donroe Doctrine flips this, making the Americas a priority to secure our sphere of influence.

Lewin drove the point home: “This is the Donroe Doctrine in action.” He’s right—redirecting billions to counter Huawei’s reach and block Chinese AI platforms from embedding in regional governments is a wake-up call. Helping US companies win contracts abroad isn’t just smart; it strengthens our economy while projecting power.

Look at disaster response as proof of concept. When Category 5 Hurricane Melissa battered the Caribbean last fall, US teams delivered nearly 1 million pounds of aid and $40 million in direct assistance, often arriving before Chinese teams. That’s not just aid; it’s a statement of who leads in a crisis.

Health and UN Reforms Spark Debate

Global health programs like PEPFAR, launched under George W. Bush, have also been retooled to push self-reliance over endless handouts. Countries must now co-invest in healthcare infrastructure and integrate treatments into national systems, with at least 16 new compacts signed. Some nations have doubled their health spending as a result, which sounds like a win for sustainability.

The United Nations, long a target of claims of inefficiency, faced a reckoning with a new agreement last month that consolidates US humanitarian funding to improve accountability. Savings from cuts—$9 billion in rescissions and $5 billion from UN reductions—are being funneled to counter China and support Trump’s peace deals abroad. It’s a pragmatic, if controversial, reallocation.

Critics warn that slashing programs like climate and diversity initiatives risks alienating allies. But when tens of billions were spent with little oversight, as Lewin claims, it’s hard to argue the old system was sacrosanct. The question is whether this laser focus on strategic returns leaves vulnerable populations out in the cold.

America First, But at What Cost?

This reset isn’t without risks—terminating scores of programs to free up funds might look efficient on paper, but human needs don’t always align with geopolitical scorecards. Still, seeing American helicopters as the first responders in a crisis sends a powerful message. It’s leadership, not largesse, that defines influence.

The Monroe Doctrine, at its core, is about ensuring that every dollar of aid advances national interests and secures our hemisphere. It’s a rejection of the progressive agenda that often frames aid as global atonement rather than a tool for American strength. Whether this gamble pays off in the long term remains to be seen, but for now it’s a playbook that demands attention.