Donald Trump’s administration has drastically reduced US international aid commitments, eliminating a major source of support in various sectors such as economic development and health.
The significant reduction in the US Agency for International Development (USAID) is the main focus among a series of interconnected actions that global institutions and beneficiary countries are rushing to address.
While Washington has declared its departure from the World Health Organization, the future of its substantial contributions to other global development and health organizations worldwide hangs in the balance.
How do US contributions compare to other aid providers?
According to official figures, US foreign assistance obligations totaled $68 billion across 204 countries and territories for 2023.
The majority of the funds were managed by USAID, with the rest overseen by the state department. A large portion of the aid is spent by agencies, US contractors, and local partners rather than directly given to foreign governments.
Almost a third of the total expenditure was allocated to economic development, approximately a fifth to humanitarian aid, while peace and security, and health each received around $10 billion.
The US stands as the largest international donor by a significant margin, with its $63.5 billion contribution in 2023 surpassing the $34.7 billion from EU institutions, based on OECD data.
Germany followed as the next top national donor with $32.2 billion, ahead of Japan at $19.3 billion and the UK at $17.3 billion.
Other major international institutions also make substantial contributions, particularly in economic development and health, with the World Bank providing $16.3 billion and the Gates Foundation offering $4.9 billion.
Despite the substantial volume of US funding, it lags behind in per capita terms. Norway, Sweden, and Germany lead the way among countries in terms of assistance as a percentage of gross national income in 2023.
What cuts has the US made?
US aid is diverse, covering military assistance to poverty alleviation. In 2023, over a quarter of aid obligations were directed to Europe and Eurasia, while just under a quarter was allocated to sub-Saharan Africa.
Major international aid recipients, as a percentage of national income, are in Africa, with countries like Central African Republic and Somalia receiving significant aid.
One of the most notable changes under the Trump administration has been the reduction of USAID’s operations. Elon Musk, heading the Department of Government Efficiency, declared the dismantling of USAID’s activities.
The impact of these decisions in Washington is already reverberating in the aid sector, affecting initiatives like Pepfar, which has played a crucial role in combating HIV/AIDS internationally.
The cuts have particularly impacted global health efforts, causing disruptions in disease eradication and containment programs across Africa.
What other effects might the cuts have?
The reduction in USAID funding has led to significant challenges in global health, slowing down disease control efforts across Africa and creating gaps in disease tracking systems.
Experts warn that the US cuts increase the risk of outbreaks like Ebola spreading beyond borders, posing a threat to global health security.
What is the case for curbing international aid?
There is an ongoing debate on the effectiveness and desirability of aid flows, with critics highlighting concerns about dependency and obligations on richer nations.
Aid organizations have adapted their approaches, focusing on promoting economic development and trade, and implementing exit strategies for countries that reach certain income thresholds.
Opponents of the Trump administration’s aid reduction argue that the abrupt and disruptive nature of the cuts could have unintended consequences and negatively impact lives.
Can others fill the gap?
The withdrawal of the US from leading development organizations, particularly in health, could leave a significant void in crucial global institutions, especially during challenging times.
Potential shortfalls from other donors, combined with the US cuts, could exacerbate existing difficulties in securing funding for vital initiatives like Gavi and the Global Fund.
While China has been suggested as a possible alternative to fill the aid gap, its focus on bilateral relationships and infrastructure investments may not align with the needs of multilateral aid organizations.
Amid ongoing announcements from Washington, financial recipients and other donors are grappling with the uncertain impacts of the aid cuts, signaling a major disruption in the international aid landscape.