That said: my own objection is primarily moral—I believe humans should help other humans without exception, _especially_ those most in need, and would strongly prefer that be embedded into the society in which we live. If you're going to argue that many folks that voted for the current administration would differ in their preferences around that, you're probably right.
The more cross-cutting argument is that Trump campaigned on getting the US out of expensive wars and preventing getting into forever wars, primarily talking about the monetary cost. Cutting off the US's soft power increases the chances of ending up in a hot war for very little actual savings—the total amount of foreign aid the US spends is below 1% of the budget.
Personally I agree with you but in recent weeks I’ve learned that most of my friends and colleagues were either ambivalent or actively hostile at the idea that the US taxpayers should help buy medicine for 20 million people suffering from HIV. That said, I am fortunate that I have enough food to eat and shelter and I live in relative comfort so I understand that I might be badly out of touch with fellow Americans.
> The more cross-cutting argument is that Trump campaigned on getting the US out of expensive wars and preventing getting into forever wars, primarily talking about the monetary cost. Cutting off the US's soft power increases the chances of ending up in a hot war for very little actual savings—the total amount of foreign aid the US spends is below 1% of the budget.
Again I’m personally in agreement with you but my understanding is that the majority of voters have difficulty following this chain of reasoning especially when it is at odds with what they are told by every social media influencer they rely on to get their news.
A plurality of voters believing something does not make it true.