Economic experts suggest that the billions in the US Senate bill would be more effective if invested domestically


Numerous scholars, politicians, and advocates have criticized the United States Senate’s approval of a foreign aid bill that allocates billions of dollars in military assistance to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan while American social programs are in need of funding. The bill also includes $9bn in international humanitarian aid, some of which may go to Palestinians in Gaza. The Senate’s decision to pass the $95bn emergency aid package has been condemned for prioritizing military spending over housing, healthcare, education, and debt relief.

Critics argue that this significant increase in the US federal budget demonstrates skewed priorities, with a large portion of resources being devoted to war and munitions rather than addressing domestic needs. The bill also raises concerns about disproportionate military aid to Israel amid ongoing conflict in the Gaza Strip. While President Biden has defended the bill, stating that it will support US national security interests and create jobs, researchers assert that other forms of government spending would have a greater impact on job creation.

Some experts suggest that the $95bn could be better used to address domestic needs, such as alleviating child poverty, funding education, and improving housing affordability. They argue that investing in wars overseas perpetuates instability and emphasize the need to break away from a reliance on military solutions for achieving security. Overall, the bill’s passage has sparked widespread debate about the government’s funding priorities and the allocation of resources.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here