President Trump's budget blueprint supposedly puts America first but instead signals America is in retreat. The massive cuts proposed — lopping 20 to 30 percent off non-military national security budgets — would endanger our national interests.

Why the unilateral disarmament? The president and his supporters are buying into outmoded thinking about the utility of spending on the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other international agencies.

Remember the Cold War, when Republican and Democratic administrations funneled money to overseas dictators to secure alliances against the Soviets? That era is long gone, replaced by "smart power" approaches, but the mistaken belief that the government throws aid dollars down a rathole persists.

The modern-day international affairs budget is a force for projecting American strength and values to far more countries and in more nuanced ways than deploying our brave troops alone can get us.

ADVERTISEMENT

In embassies around the world, U.S. ambassadors and their teams engage on a long list of issues — from promoting democracy, fighting disease and furthering U.S. economic interests — to the traditional services for Americans abroad like replacing lost passports and helping travelers in emergencies.

Americans are usually wrong about the size of the international affairs budget, telling pollsters that it eats up one-quarter of the federal budget, when it is roughly 1 percent. Our citizens are right, however, in assuming that when disaster strikes abroad, we are among the first to respond with humanitarian relief.

What they may not know is that we are also leaders in investing in the capacity of other countries to prepare for disasters, build resilience and recover afterwards. How can we convince other governments to follow our lead in this — and many other vital issues — if we have no one on the ground in those countries to meet, discuss, explain and persuade?

The negotiator-in-chief may think he can strike international deals one country at a time, one world leader after another. But diplomacy and development require other skills, starting with showing up and listening.

Responsible members of Congress get this. Those who have traveled to hotspots overseas have seen how America wields outsized influence on myriad concerns that, if ignored, could grow, metastasize and harm us.

When we show up, whether at a ministry in Jordan, refugee camp in Bangladesh or press conference at U.N. headquarters, we earn respect and cooperation on efforts that matter to us, from countering terrorism to stopping bird flu and the Ebola virus.

My former colleagues at the State Department knew our operating budgets and aid dollars were precious and that appropriations from Congress had to be spent carefully. We monitored programs, submitted to in-depth reviews by government auditors, answered questions from Congress and sought to ensure we got results for the American taxpayer, even under some of the most demanding conditions (did you duck and cover at work today?).

Top brass in the military know this, too. Then-Gen. Jim Mattis, now the secretary of Defense, acknowledged the good our diplomats and aid experts do when he said, "If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I have to buy more ammunition."

Secretary Mattis should tell that to the president.

This piece was corrected on March 27, 2017 at 3:20 p.m.

Anne C. Richard is a visiting fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perry World House and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.