For decades, we’ve referred to governments that fund international development programmes as “donors.” The term is so ingrained in our lexicon that it’s rare within development circles to hear (former) USAID, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), or the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) described as anything else. Yet the word “donor” fundamentally misrepresents what these governments are doing when they spend on foreign assistance. It implies an act of charity – well-meaning, even altruistic, but ultimately optional. A gift.

But governments are not philanthropists. They do not give away taxpayer money out of kindness. They invest it, strategically, in ways that advance national interests. Foreign assistance is not a donation; it’s a tool of statecraft. It strengthens national security, builds economic and trade relationships, promotes resilience in fragile states, and expands soft power. The sooner we stop calling governments “donors,” the sooner we can have a more serious conversation about the role of development in global stability.

A Strategic Investment in National Security

Foreign assistance is a critical pillar of national security policy. Countries that invest in global stability reduce the likelihood of conflicts that could threaten their own interests. The U.S. National Security Strategy has long recognised development assistance as a key tool in countering terrorism, strengthening fragile states, and reducing the conditions that fuel extremism. In conflict-prone regions, investments in governance, education, and job creation can help mitigate instability before it escalates into a security crisis and violence.

Consider Colombia. While headlines were dominated by clashes between government forces and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), along with DEA interventions against drug cartels, significant funding was also directed toward stabilising the country. Investments in infrastructure, education, and governance played a crucial role in strengthening the country and reduced the risk of Colombia becoming a failed state that could further destabilise the region. Calling these efforts “donations” overlooks their strategic purpose in promoting security, economic development and regional stability.

Similarly, in the Sahel, foreign assistance programs are working to counter the influence of extremist groups by providing alternative livelihoods and strengthening governance. These are not acts of charity; they are pre-emptive strategies to prevent the kind of instability that leads to mass displacement, regional conflicts, and, ultimately, threats to the security of “donor” nations.

Strengthening Global Resilience and Economic Interests

Governments also invest in development to build global resilience – whether against pandemics, climate change, or economic shocks. COVID-19 demonstrated how interconnected the world has become. No country could wall itself off from the consequences of a poorly managed global health crisis. Governments that funded vaccine distribution in low-income countries were not simply being generous; they were acting in their own interests to prevent new variants, stabilise global supply chains, and accelerate economic recovery.

The same logic applies to climate resilience. When Australia funds climate adaptation programs in the Pacific, it’s not giving a gift to its neighbours; it’s protecting its own future. Rising sea levels and extreme weather events threaten regional security and could trigger mass migration crises. Investing in resilience in the Pacific is a direct investment in Australia’s long-term security.

Foreign assistance also builds economic relationships as countries that receive aid can become trade partners. The U.S. Government, for example, has long justified its development programmes by highlighting how former aid recipients—South Korea being a prime example—have gone on to become major economic partners. Stronger economies abroad create new markets for exports, foster business opportunities, and reduce reliance on crisis-driven interventions.

The Power of Influence

Finally, foreign assistance is a tool of soft power. Governments use development funding to shape global norms, build alliances, and maintain influence in key regions. China has understood this well, using its Belt and Road Initiative to invest in infrastructure across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, not out of charity, but to expand its political and economic reach. Western governments, too, use aid strategically to maintain influence in a world where authoritarian models of development are gaining traction.

Aid funding often comes with values attached – promoting democratic governance, human rights, and economic transparency. Countries that provide this assistance do so not simply out of a belief in these values but because they see them as critical to a world order that serves their interests.

The Risk of the “Donor” Mindset

Referring to governments as “donors” is not just misleading – it’s politically dangerous. It fuels the perception that foreign assistance is an optional expense, an act of generosity that can be cut in times of economic strain. This makes it vulnerable to political attack, particularly in times of fiscal austerity.

If governments and the development sector framed foreign assistance as an investment—as essential to national security as defence spending or domestic infrastructure—then it would be harder to slash budgets without scrutiny. The U.S., the UK, and Australia do not cut military spending when budgets tighten; they justify it as a necessity. Foreign assistance should be framed the same way.

Time for a New Lexicon

It’s time to retire the language of “donors” and “donations” when we talk about foreign assistance. Governments are not charities, and their funding decisions are not acts of altruism. They are making investments; sometimes long-term, sometimes with immediate returns, but always with a strategic rationale.

If we want to build public and political support for foreign assistance, we need to change how we talk about it. Let’s stop calling it charity. Let’s start calling it what it is: a critical investment in national security, resilience, and global stability.