And the problem with that is...
...nonexistant? Government is supposed to be taking care of the interests of We the People first. We have poor people, we have sick people, and we have other problems that are not being adequately met. A lot of people think so, and just because you sanctimoniously like to be generous to foreigners with their tax dollars does not make you right or better than they. Additionally, there is the danger of unintended consequences and other issues from a government's intervention. At least we, in the US, have recourse to deal with the consequences of the government's actions that harm us. The people of Swaziland or Moldava or Myanmar can't do anything when US intervention backfires against them.

AIDS prevention is very simple, and very personal, which 1. Africans are very capable of figuring out on their own, and 2. not something for which the US government is really all that well-equipped to handle anyway.
Historically, charitable aid is diminished by government programs. When the government is addressing issues, there is less donation or charitable effort being made by its people. Whether this is due to higher taxes that fund such aid depleting private resources available for donation, or a tendency to complacency because the problem is being taken care of by the government, or some combination thereof.

That said, Trump is not a leader, he is a follower. He did not inspire new ideas in the electorate, he accurately gauged and appealed to their priorities. People have no problems with help going to foreign countries, they have a problem with their tax dollars being used by the government to fund programs for another government, which will almost certainly be used unwisely, when they are not diverted to enriching the government personnel. As one US statesman said a couple of years ago, "Foreign aid consists of taking money from the poor people in a rich country and giving it to the rich people in a poor country."

If countries had their shit together, they would not be in a position to to need foreign aid. Funding the governments that are running their countries into the ground is not helping much, if at all.

Expected by whom? Who has the right to judge the USA? That quote is absolute nonsense. If we are not allowed to pray in public schools, we have no business setting public policy according to irrelevant Bible quotes. The quote specifically comments on the relationship to the giver and the gifted, that one who GIVES much has a right to expect the the recipient do a great deal in turn. As standard of behavior, it refers to divine judgment, which is passed on individuals, and not on countries. It would only have the slightest relevance to this sort of situation if various African states had give this country jackshit aside from a really good deal on some of those slaves back when we were still colonies. And maybe that village that donated 17 cows to the USA when they heard the news about 9/11.

Which, unfortunately, all comes from the left side of the political spectrum. Trump's supposedly unseemly approach to political disagreement has pretty much been justified in many minds by the symbiosis of the left wing political class and its mobs. The left gets to gin up mobs and paint them as rebels against oppression, while not getting their hands dirty, and the mobs are protected against consequences while doing the street work of the left. Hitler, at least, was directly identified with the intimidation tactics of his party's following. The Democrats get a layer of deniability.

It is ALWAYS the left who carries out political violence, which is always presented as proof of their heroism and the sincerity of their convictions, while they constantly gasseously pontificate about their fear of right wing violence. They were all but hysterical about the possibility of Barack Obama being assassinated, when in fact, with one exception, every assassinated president was a Republican, as well as the attempted assassination of Reagan. Kennedy, the lone Democrat assassin victim was killed by a communist, who sought to emmigrate to both Cuba and the USSR, and had previously attempted to assassinate a conservative general. His brother, the other major left-wing figure to be so assassinated, was killed by a Muslim activist. The violence committed against MLK & co was committed by Democrats. The KKK was the militant wing of the Democrat party at its violent heights, and its membership didn't have a significant number of Republicans until blacks started bloc-voting as Democrats, and being identified with the party causing the white supremacists to switch to the Democrats' opposition party. In the last election in which white supremacy was an explicit force, in 1968, the Democrats were the direct beneficiaries, while posturing as if they were going to indirectly benefit by the segregationist party stealing Republican votes. Instead, the GOP candidate maintained a steady lead in the polls, and as election day drew nearer, the segregationist vote bled over to the Democratic candidate. After Islamics, the major terrorists in the US are evironmental groups. Both of which are passionately defended by Democrats, along with blacks, who are the predominant perpetrators of riots and disproprotionately represented among violent criminals, along with Hispanics. The left is constantly trying to spin stories of right wing violence, and constantly coming up short. They tried to pin Jared Loughner on Sarah Palin, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, and much more indicating a liberal ideology. The plane that kamikazed the IRS building was blamed on anti-government motivations, until the pilot identified as a leftist in his suicide note. The professor who shot up a faculty meeting was claimed to be an anti-education conservative, until it was revealed that she was a liberal who constantly sung Obama's praises. The census worker who disappeared a few years back in the South was blamed on anti-government conservatives, until it was discovered that he had committed suicide in an insurance scam. It was a liberal government worker & union agitator who bit a conservative town hall attendee's finger off. It was liberals who were sucker-punching alt-right spokesmen, destroying cars, breaking windows and tearing apart sidewalk fixtures at the inauguration. It was liberals whose Occupy protests featured assaults and rapes and thefts and large amounts of property damage and clashes with law enforcement, while the Tea Party protests were universally peaceful, with only partisan complaints and agitators as the source of any difficulties. Even the names were a contrast: the Tea Party was a light-hearted semi-facetious allusion to the archetype of a mannered gathering, while the Occupy movement refered to military invasion and compulsion by force of arms. And of course, there is the aforementioned fanatic liberal defense of Muslims, who are the primary purveyors of terrorism. Terrorist connections and Islamic backgrounds are ignored as much as possible, with the Orlando incident being blamed on "homophobia" (again, a leftwing label that does not describe any self-identified attitudes toward homosexuals - the left claims the prerogative of asserting the other side's feelings or motivations), the Fort Hood shooting on PTSD, the San Bernardino incident on workplace violence and the Times Square bomb initially claimed to be the work of a white male opposed to Obamacare! The recent airport shooting was one where the media broke their usual rule against using Hispanic names of perpetrators to obfuscate his Islamic motivation.

As far as generating fear, the left is constantly publicizing racial hoaxes and altering the narrative to spark hatred, such as editing the video of Rodney King's arrest or George Zimmerman's 911 call. There are hoaxes and fabrications like the mattress girl, the Rolling Stone frat house rape, the Duke lacrosse incident, and Tawana Brawley. Democratic presidential candidate & liberal cable news network talk show host Al Sharpton was responsible for the last, and for inciting multiple anti-Semetic riots in New York. Other hoaxes include President Clinton knowingly lying in his speech at the 1996 convention about swastikas being painted on the homes of black Special Forces soldiers. In fact, Clinton knew that investigations had already determined the grafiti was the work of a black resident, and the soldiers were not, in fact, members of the Special Forces. A couple of coincidental church fires in the south sparked a federal investigation task force, that wasted millions of dollars looking for non-existant racism, and Clinton justified it in a speech citing his own painful memories of a black church burning epidemic in Arkansas during his childhood, when subsequent research proved there were no church burnings at that period in time.

Democrats and liberals actively do this all of the time. Trump is supposed to be conciliatory and bend over backwards to accomodate people who have expressed nothing but hatred and contempt of him, because he is the president, and this is his duty, but it is always Democrats fanning the flames of hatred, even as Presidents, who are supposed to be for everyone and uniting the country. When Trayvon Martin got shot, Obama could have taken different ways to express his disapproval and disappointment. He could have condemned ready access to guns facilitating the fatal outcome, he could have blamed vigilantism or taking the law into one's own hands. Instead, he chose to cite racial solidarity, without even knowing the facts. He said that if he had a son, he might have looked like Trayvon Martin, pretty much openly telling a majority white nation that he was on the black guy's side, regardless of what facts were still to come out, and that was perfectly consistent with similar actions in the past, such as his leaping to criticize the police officer who arrested Henry Gates, again, without knowing the facts of the matter, such as the officer having a peerless record on racial issues, and saving the life of a black celebrity. Democrats take explicitly hostile actions, and forego opportunities to be inclusive or to mend rifts or even just keep their damn mouths shut. No one was demanding that Obama speak out on a minor incident in a Florida suburb or a Massachusettes college town, or that Bill Clinton offer a personal recollection relevant to a fire in a church that happened to have a black congregation. No one asked him to comment on an incident he knew to be a hoax perpetrated by a black person.

And those are the majority of racial incidents, at least where something actually takes place, instead of innocent comments being retroactively deemed racist. They consist of things like the rash of false rapes, or the racist incidents at schools, which turn out to be hoaxes perpetrated by black students or teachers in an effort to incite fear and silence their political opponents "spark a discussion of issues." Or there are things like the mother who claimed her children had been attacked by white supremacists and had their faces painted white. There were rewards offered, and a massive manhunt and extensive police investigation, with tons of sanctimonious condemnations by liberal politicians and media figures. Then came a wave of retaliatory crimes against white people including assaults with victims painted with shoe polish, and rapes, with one gang of attackers having nuanced debate about a Hispanic victim before deciding that he looked white so they beat him up too. And then it turned out that it was a scam intended to allow the kids to transfer to a prefered school district, and that members of the family had a history of using racism as an excuse for academic shortcomings. That revelation, of course, was buried in the papers and everyone shut up about the whole thing and it was flushed down the memory hole. Every single confrontation between people who are white and black, regardless of the origins or motivations, is ginned up into a racial bias incident. In Howard Beach, a bunch of teen thugs, who had been getting into fights with white people all night, got into a confrontation with three black youths. One of whom fled the scene, climbed a fence and ran out into a highway where he was struck and killed by a car, after which he was lionized as a martyr to racial bigotry, despite no known racial motivations for the confrontation, nor any evidence of lethal intent. In fact, they didn't actually kill either of the black men they actually got their hands on. But race was declared, on no evidence, to be the motivation, and that generated other racial confrontations, including a march through the neighborhood where it happened to take place, as if the law-abiding residents were responsible for what a roving band of punks did, and retaliatory assaults by the black community.

It is liberals and those they champion who are the violent and terrorizers, and it is always the right they claim to fear, based on nothing other than their own lies and imputed motivations.