If anything, the cuts are too small

President Trump has requested $25.6 billion for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, or $312 per American family — a 28% reduction from 2017.

The Global Climate Change Initiative and the Green Climate Fund are on the chopping block, with cuts suggested for the United Nations, development organizations and educational exchange programs. The president would shift foreign military assistance grants to loans and end overlapping peacekeeping programs.

These cuts are, if anything, too small. President Obama’s last budget spends 110 pages describing State Department expenditures without a costbenefit analysis. We are left to guess about the benefit of these vast sums.

Many of these programs could be privately funded. We do not need State Department educational exchange programs when foreign students are well-represented on college campuses and many Americans study abroad. Many World Bank projects could be funded by large commercial banks that did not exist when the World Bank was founded in 1944. Even with reductions in funding, the USA would remain the top World Bank donor.

American families should not be paying more than $3 billion for migration and refugee assistance programs to fund refugees overseas. One recipient, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, has a dubious track record. In addition, the State Department pays more than $500 million for refugees in the United States. Neither should Americans contribute $1.3 billion to international organizations, many of whose members vote against U.S. interests.

The Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund was allocated $221 million. If these pensions cannot be merged with Civil Service pensions, the fund should be self-sustaining.

The State Department has a poor track record. Examples of failure include the Iran deal, Syria, China’s military bases in the South China Sea and U.S. backing of anti-Israel policies. American families could be making better use of the funds.