National Interest

by Patrick W. Quirk

    Investing in preventive humanitarian assistance both saves money and ameliorates the causes of conflict.

    At a moment when America’s role in the world is under intense debate and Congress gears up for a post-midterm budget battle, new polling finds bipartisan majorities support US investments in humanitarian relief, global health, education and economic development. The findings reinforce a broader trend: Americans continue to believe they should help people facing hunger, conflict and humanitarian emergencies.

    They are right to do so. Helping children in crisis is not only a moral imperative. It is also an investment in a safer and more stable world. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill should take heed.

    For the first time in history, the capital exists to ensure no child dies from preventable causes before the age of five. For investors focused on American security, there’s no better return on investment out there.

    Intra-state violence is escalating globally and children are suffering the most. Across the world, more than one in six children—over 473 million—live in conflict-affected areas, a number that has doubled since the 1990s.

    From Syria to Myanmar, Ukraine to Haiti, children in conflict zones are starving, falling behind in education and contracting preventable diseases. This unnecessary suffering is not only terrible for children and their families—but it also enables national security challenges for the United States and its partners.

    The more children are malnourished, robbed of education, or face violence, the more likely they or their families are to seek a better life elsewhere (evidenced by mass migration from Central and South America) or join armed organizations that generate instability (witness child recruitment in Haiti, for instance). Failing to strengthen local health systems puts children at risk for contracting preventable diseases and increases the probability that such pathogens, such as Ebola, reach American shores.

    The United States must recommit to aiding children in need because it is the right thing to do and reflects our values as a nation and because such assistance brings an added benefit: mitigating security risks to taxpayers.

How should the United States and allies deliver for children

    First, we need to make big bets rather than settle for incremental gains. If current trends persist, by 2030, more than 30 million children will not survive to celebrate their fifth birthday. With the United States in the lead, we should aim for zero deaths—an ambitious but achievable goal, as most are preventable through low-cost interventions.

    Second, we should double down on preventing suffering rather than solely treating it—starting with malnutrition. The Trump administration has prioritized supporting life-saving assistance in priority countries with significant resources, including emergency food rations like Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food (RUTF). Going forward, lifesaving assistance should also emphasize work that prevents crises—and malnutrition in particular—before they happen. Locally led efforts that identify and address malnutrition early are often more effective and less costly than waiting until children require RUTF or other medical treatment.

    Prevention also means preparing for predictable shocks. The “Super” El Niño is slated to surge next month, putting more than 347 million children at risk globally. It is predicted to generate migration, food shortages and displacement far beyond the 2023–2024 El Niño cycle, which caused severe drought, food shortages and in Southern Africa alone left more than 61 million people requiring humanitarian assistance. Prevention is cost-effective, with a $1 investment in disaster preparedness and risk reduction saving upwards of $15 in post-event recovery. It reduces suffering, saves money and helps avert larger crises before they emerge.

    Third and finally, we need to meet the moment of shrinking government assistance budgets by scaling models that are highly efficient and encourage private partners to share the burden. To do more with less, the United States and others should accelerate work via local partners while ensuring accountability and oversight.

    American corporations, philanthropists and the broader public already give generously to help those most in need. They need trusted partners, proven mechanisms and evidence-based solutions that maximize return on investment. Save the Children’s Emergency Response Fund is one example of how to multiply the impact of humanitarian investments; in 2025 alone, it mobilized an additional $76.4 million in private funding, helping 14.2 million children in crises where governments had already given. At a time when public resources are under pressure, models that combine government support with private giving can help reach more children than either could alone.

    Helping children is a win-win-win: it saves lives, advances US national security and reflects what the American people want their country to stand for. By investing in prevention, setting ambitious goals and leveraging public and private resources, we can save children’s lives while strengthening America’s security.