Few phrases have exerted as much staying power—or done as much damage to development policy—as the tidy little mantra: “trade, not aid.” For decades, this slogan has captivated ideologues across the political spectrum, offering a deceptively simple prescription for growth. It has proved catchy, intuitive, and politically convenient—especially now, as international development institutions face funding cuts and closures.

Few phrases have exerted as much staying power—or done as much damage to development policy—as the tidy little mantra: “trade, not aid.” For decades, this slogan has captivated ideologues across the political spectrum, offering a deceptively simple prescription for growth. It has proved catchy, intuitive, and politically convenient—especially now, as international development institutions face funding cuts and closures.

But it has always been more seductive than sound.

With the U.S.-led reordering of global trade, the slogan now rings more hollow than ever. As rich countries turn inward, slashing foreign assistance in favor of defense and domestic priorities, some are wondering: What happens next? Many see an opportunity—if not an imperative—to rethink a vital but flawed international aid system.

At this arguably existential moment for global trade and development, it’s time to retire “trade, not aid” for good—not simply because it misdiagnoses the problem of underdevelopment, but because it distorts policymaking. Both aid and trade can contribute to development. But neither works when treated as a panacea.

As the world grapples with a seismic shift in U.S. trade policy, and as we bid the slogan good riddance, it’s worth tracing the illusions it spun—and the policy damage it enabled.

The phrase dates back to the early 1950s, apparently coined by American industrialist H.W. Prentis Jr. as a call to end postwar assistance to Europe.