The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is eyeing deep funding cuts at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump reportedly wants to slash funding to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development by 37 percent, while also pouring an additional $54 billion into the country’s defense budget. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers quickly criticized the cuts, however, saying they would hobble U.S. influence in the world. What would such cuts, and increased defense spending, mean for the United States’ role in Latin America and the Caribbean? Should the U.S. military have a larger role, with the State Department taking a smaller role, in the hemisphere? What are the implications for the region if more U.S. foreign policy is conducted through a military and security lens rather than through traditional diplomacy?

U.S. Rep. Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), Ranking member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs: "Last week, I sent a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—signed by 103 of my colleagues—urging him to press the White House to reverse these draconian, short-sighted cuts to the Fiscal Year 2018 international affairs budget. I hope the administration quickly changes course and realizes that slashing support for diplomacy and development will only make our country less safe. In recent years, the Obama administration worked with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to renew the U.S. commitment to Latin America and the Caribbean, including through a bold, new foreign assistance package for Central America. We are now addressing the root causes of child migration from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador to the United States in order to stop children from being forced to make the perilous journey from their home countries to the U.S.—Mexico border. Dramatically cutting the State Department and USAID’s budgets would make it very difficult to continue to do this, while also emasculating long-standing U.S. commitments to Haiti, Colombia and other key partners. Finally, increasing the military’s role in our policy toward Latin America and the Caribbean while reducing international affairs spending would severely undermine the civilian, democratic institutions that we have supported for so many years. I hope Secretary Tillerson is able to convince the White House to reverse course before the FY 2018 budget is released. But if not, I will do everything in my power to work with my colleagues in Congress to ensure that these cuts do not take place."

James Jay Carafano, vice president at the Heritage Foundation: "The Fiscal Year 2017 Congressional Budget Justification for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs estimates that the fiscal year 2016 Budget of International Affairs was $54.6 billion. Assuming that the Fiscal Year 2017 budget under the continuing resolution maintained that funding level, a 30 percent cut to the International Affairs Budget will mean a $16.4 billion decrease. That sounds like a big cut—and it is. But it needs to be put in perspective. Looking back at previous budgets as listed above, the 30 percent cut would return the International Affairs Budget to levels last seen at the end of the George W. Bush administration. And the International Affairs Budget during the Bush administration was hardly austere. To the contrary, it grew substantially from 2000 to 2008. Increased funding under the Obama administration seems to have gone in significant part to support the ideological priorities and preoccupations of the previous administration. The Obama administration, for example, focused more than $3 billion on climate change, biodiversity, family planning and gender. Certainly, some funding on these issues is warranted, but cuts in foreign assistance focused on these issues would not endanger core U.S. national security interests. Further, right now people are jumping to conclusions with little information. Budget reductions at the Department of State and at other international affairs agencies are not necessarily a threat to the security of the United States, nor would they necessarily impede the ability of the State Department to fulfill its core diplomatic mission."

Douglas Fraser, retired U.S. Air Force general and former commander of the U.S. Southern Command: "U.S. national security policy is based on three legs—diplomacy, development and defense. Reducing funding to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) dramatically shortens two already shortened legs of the national security stool—diplomacy and development. Our national security is stronger when all three legs are strong and working together. U.S. security is not threatened by a military intervention from our Latin American and Caribbean neighbors. Instead, the threat to both the United States and our neighbors to the south is the violence and insecurity produced by transnational criminal organizations enabled by income inequality, poverty, corruption and inadequate police and judiciaries. The State Department, USAID and other U.S. government departments, including the Department of Justice, work with our partner governments to address these enduring problems. Reduced funding for their programs will hurt U.S. security interests in the region. Department of Defense partner-building programs in the region benefit directly from State Department and USAID-funded programs. International Military Education and Training programs, Foreign Military Finance programs, and Peace Keeping Operation programs are funded through the State Department, not the Defense Department. These programs directly support U.S. military training, capacity building and security interests. Reduced funding to these programs will reduce U.S. military influence and capacity-building efforts. Increased military influence in defense programs in Latin America without corresponding increases to diplomatic and development programs sends the wrong message to our neighbors. Based on the mixed results from the history of U.S. military involvement in the region, increased U.S. military engagement at the expense of diplomatic and development programs could be seen as a return to that era of U.S. relations with Latin America. This perception will hurt U.S. military engagement. Therefore, like Secretary Gates and many of my fellow flag and general officers, I strongly support continued funding for State Department and USAID programs. U.S. national security interests are best served by maintaining three strong legs of national security policy—diplomacy, development, and defense."

James R. Jones, member of the Advisor board, chairman of ManattJones Global Strategies and former U.S. congressman and ambassador to Mexico: "If President Trump really wants the United States to ‘win’ as he says, it would be foolish to cut the foreign affairs budget by a third. That would be a surefire formula to make America a ‘loser’ among the nations of the world. The administration doesn’t seem to understand yet that American strength in the world comes from making friends, strengthening allies and cementing true partnerships with other nations. That is particularly true in this hemisphere, where American military might is much less important or effective than the fruits of U.S. diplomacy. As a former chairman of the House Budget Committee, I understand the difficult trade-offs needed to build a responsible budget. Priorities must be decided to properly fund them. The administration says defeating ISIS and similar terrorist organizations is among our highest priorities. That won’t be accomplished by spending billions on costly warships or airplanes. Those are not the frontline weapons against terrorism. In this hemisphere, America’s security rests more on building relationships and promoting democracy and free-market economic systems than on rattling our sabers. Diplomacy is our most effective tool to ensure that the United States is perceived as a ‘winner’ among our neighbors in this hemisphere. I hope Congress will not shortchange it."

The Latin America Advisor features Q&A from leaders in politics, economics, and finance every business day. It is available to members of the Dialogue's Corporate Program and others by subscription.