On October 28, Megan Reiss spoke at the Christianity and National Security Conference about the role of faith and ethics in American foreign policy. In particular, she looks at whether Christians should support charitable policies that might help save millions but could hurt the US in the long term. She looks at questions about Herbert Hoover’s efforts to help save Soviets starving from the 1921–22 famine, as well as current questions about children in rural China suffering from malnutrition and on nuclear weapons. The following is a transcript of the lecture. 

Thank you for having me here today. Just to survey the room, how many of you are college students right now? Excellent, you are my favorite people to talk to! (Sorry if I’m offending any of the non-college students). I came to talk to you today about faith, ethics, and defending America. Just a little on my background, I studied under— I hear Paul Miller is in the room—during my PhD days. I’ve done some great work in Texas and D.C. I’m blessed to work in the best office in the Senate for Senator Mitt Romney. I’ll bring in some of my academic work, but mostly I want to talk about choices—how to live out your faith in an environment that doesn’t have an easy good or bad button when you’re working through these choices. 

I caught part of the speaker before me, who spoke about Afghanistan. Though I won’t focus on Afghanistan today, it’s one of the most difficult and complex policy areas. Figuring out how to live out your faith through your work has been an overwhelming goal of mine, especially in the last couple of months as we’ve dealt with evacuation efforts and helping individuals on the ground. These people did not choose to be born in Afghanistan and should not suffer because of the accident of their birth. I’ll start by posing major questions and policy conundrums that highlight the complexity of balancing national security policy with Christian faith. What do you do when millions of people could be aided by the U.S., but that aid could theoretically hurt the U.S. in the long term? Do we as Christians still push to give the aid? What about when we develop military capabilities that could lead to the destruction of thousands or millions of civilian lives but could strengthen the U.S. in the long term? Do we as Christians support that capability? 

I’ll start with a historical example, then present two current issues policymakers, myself included, grapple with today. I won’t necessarily answer these questions but will illuminate the difficulties of these decisions. I’ll be happy to take questions afterward. I’ll keep this talk to 10 to 15 minutes because I want college students—and others—to ask questions. 

A hundred years ago, Herbert Hoover led an aid effort to the Soviet Union during the 1921–1923 famine. He is credited with saving millions of lives. He also led the effort to provide the Soviets with seeds to stop the famine altogether. This aid helped an enemy country that later demonized Hoover’s work and America at large. That same country later pointed nuclear weapons at our biggest cities and remains a threat today. We don’t know what stresses might have resulted had the U.S. not intervened. There’s at least one counterfactual scenario where the ongoing famine could have profoundly impacted the nascent communist government. Our effort to be Good Samaritans may have harmed our long-term national security interests.

Today we face similar decisions. Specific, targeted aid can do immense good for innocent civilians. For example, China has rampant Vitamin D deficiency, anemia, and intestinal worms in rural populations. Dr. Scott Rozelle, an academic at Stanford, found an even more concerning issue: in rural populations, more than 50% of babies show developmental delays by 18 months. Many are not malnourished but suffer because their parents don’t interact with them. In their culture, otherwise loving parents don’t talk to their babies, who hear far fewer words daily than their urban peers. Seventy percent of Chinese babies are part of the rural *hukou* system or belong to rural-to-urban migrant families, meaning this problem affects a vast number of children. 

There are inexpensive but profound ways to help these children, improving their wellness and lifespan. But this aid could accelerate China’s ascendancy. As a Christian, I feel obligated to help as many children as possible. As a policy advisor, I see the value in a rural Chinese population recognizing U.S. charitable contributions. Yet, China poses a profound threat. They seek to supplant the international order, pushing repression over freedom. This must factor into decisions about aid. 

Lastly, let’s address nuclear weapons. I think there’s too much reflexive support for them in the Republican party. In my archival research, I examined how leaders perceived nuclear weapons—whether they were fearful of their use and how they viewed the spread of these weapons. When U.S. leaders faced the potential use of nukes, the weight of their decisions was profound. They consistently acted to avoid conflict leading to nuclear use. I visited Hiroshima at 16 and saw the destruction—the people turned to shadows on sidewalks. I hope and pray no country ever uses nuclear weapons again. Still, I support U.S. nukes and nuclear modernization. I find this consistent with my Christian faith, though I struggle to reconcile these beliefs. 

Michael Walzer, in Just and Unjust Wars, argues that not just the use but even the deterrence of nuclear weapons is immoral. Deterrence involves threatening evil under the moral exception of a supreme emergency. Walzer contends that deterrence makes the supreme emergency condition permanent, rendering it immoral. If you’re here, you’re grappling with how Christianity, realism, and foreign policy intersect. Dr. LiVecche will cover just war theory better than I can. But I trust U.S. leaders to follow just war principles—resorting to force only when necessary, focusing on proportionality, and limiting civilian casualties. My support for nuclear weapons rests on their deterrence capability, which Walzer criticizes. Deterrence requires a credible threat and willingness to use nuclear force, an incredibly difficult position for a Christian.

During the Cold War, the U.S. specifically left cities vulnerable to Soviet attacks to strengthen deterrence. Without nuclear modernization, I believe the risk of conflict—and civilian casualties—would be higher. While I’d love a nuclear-free world, we must weigh the risks of reducing nuclear arsenals against the reality of adversaries like Russia, who pursue lower-yield nukes for tactical use. 

We base our decisions on history, law, psychology, and economics, aiming to live out our faith by reducing civilian casualties and conflict. As a Christian, I believe every person is made in the image of the Creator. The accident of being born in an authoritarian country does not lessen my desire to help them. Balancing immediate threats with long-term humanitarian goals is challenging. The Soviet famine case reminds us that even well-intentioned aid can have unforeseen consequences.

I’ll leave you with this: these are complicated decisions, and most of us won’t be ultimate decision-makers. But we do choose who we work for. I encourage you to work for someone who will weigh decisions through an ethical and moral lens.

Thank you. Any questions?

Q&A

Question: You mentioned there was potentially an issue with providing aid to China. In the same way, China provides aid to impoverished African countries and exerts influence that way. If the U.S. provided aid to China, would that exert some form of influence? Would China see that as helpful? Would the U.S. be exerting influence, or are China and the U.S. too ideologically dissimilar?  

Answer: It’s a great question. Giving aid to an adversary—like if we choose to do that—is there a way it could be beneficial to the U.S.? Many adversarial countries have massive concerns about any alternative reality or narrative. What happens is, more difficult countries prevent that kind of information from getting out. I personally would not be optimistic that this is an alternative. It’s something you’d want to happen, but current realities in China and other places make it unlikely.  

The other part of your question notes China’s effectiveness in promoting its BRI aid. The U.S., especially on the Hill, has recognized that we’ve failed to tell people about the good we do abroad. There’s a growing effort to better communicate, whether or not governments want to hear it, that we’re active through USAID, DFC, and other programs investing in people—not just to get leaders on board but to help people pursue their best interests long-term.  

Question: I’m Greg Webel, a graduate student at the University of Dallas. A question that’s been on my mind relates to Mr. Patterson’s speech. As Christians, we view the world realistically. But the idea of Christians wanting the U.S. to create reform in other countries through stationing troops or providing social work seems almost as idealistic as far-left ideas of using the U.S. government to do things. Wouldn’t we be better off using private sector efforts, like private charities, since the U.S. government manipulates its appearance?  

Answer: I’ll repeat your question. You’re asking whether the U.S. government should be involved in aid and troop stationing abroad or if these goals are better fulfilled through the private sector. The U.S. government generally shouldn’t be involved if the private sector can address an issue. My political views align with that perspective. I believe the U.S. presence abroad has a stabilizing effect. We often condition aid on transparency or pro-democracy measures.  

There’s a debate in the Republican party, but I believe troop presences are stabilizing beyond their immediate location and benefit regions. None of this should happen if the private sector can handle it. But we’re not seeing that. Where private investment isn’t happening, the government can play a role in catalyzing private-sector involvement. For example, setting a production floor for a time-limited contract can encourage private investment. Government involvement should only occur when necessary, and I believe the U.S. is typically a force for good.  

Question: I’m Rohan from Wheaton College. I’m thinking about China sending aid to African countries. Could the U.S. coerce China to stop sending aid, and would that slow China’s global impact? What are the pros and cons?  

Answer: The U.S. cannot stop Chinese aid. We’ve been investing in Africa for a long time but haven’t promoted it well. PEPFAR is a successful program where we get credit. Africa isn’t unified; it’s many countries with different tribes and views. The issue with U.S. aid is that it often comes with reform conditions, unlike Chinese aid. African governments may prefer Chinese roads to U.S. five-year reform plans.  

However, Chinese aid often comes as loans with high interest, creating long-term debt. Leaders may prioritize short-term benefits, such as roads that help their re-election, over long-term consequences. U.S. aid educates these governments about long-term planning and offers alternatives when aligned with U.S. interests.  

Question:: Has the nuclear weapons system shifted conflicts from developed to developing countries through proxy wars between great powers?  

Answer: This is theoretical. I lean toward the view that nukes have limited conflict, though it’s speculative. We can’t know what would’ve happened without nuclear stabilization between Russia and the U.S. during the Cold War. Some of the deadliest conflicts, like Mao’s Great Leap Forward or the Great War in the Congo, weren’t Cold War-related.  

Question: I’m Catherine from Liberty University. If a country were in a national security situation where it had to ally with a bad actor to prevent a worse actor from gaining power, what would your ethical approach be?  

Answer: I’d need more information. If you have a bad actor you don’t want to ally with but could partner with to counter a worse actor, I’d ask: does the bad actor need something from us? If so, can we use that leverage to push them toward acceptable changes? For example, if a country with poor women’s rights wanted our weapons systems, we could condition sales on reforms. This could improve outcomes for women and strengthen our position against the worse actor. If the bad actor is committing genocide, we’d need different partners.  

Question: Hello, my name is James. I work at the Institute on Religion and Democracy. I’m wondering, going back to the questions about Chinese aid to Africa—as we know, the Chinese don’t give away a road for free. At some point, won’t African nations say they like the aid and roads, but, as in Sri Lanka, now it’s China’s property? African nations didn’t want European colonialists; I assume they don’t want Chinese colonialists either. At what point do you think they’ll stop accepting aid from China, even if it’s beneficial, because it’s too much of a burden on their national pride or because they don’t want to be controlled by a distant country?

Answer: It depends on the country and their specific circumstances. There’s one country I probably shouldn’t name that had a small industry focused on wool. A massive Chinese company invested, and their parliament effectively handed over control of this industry. The company then stopped paying workers. People started starving and fleeing to neighboring countries. Parliament, within about nine months, had to reverse the law and expel the company. In the meantime, the population suffered immensely, with a large portion unpaid for a long period. That country now has safeguards against Chinese aid.  

That’s a dramatic example, but other countries are experiencing similar issues. In some cases, the civilian population becomes wary of Chinese aid before the political class, which is often compromised, does. It’s a process, and it will likely take time in many countries before there’s a broader rejection. But I think it’s happening.