How do USAid cuts impact Africa?

Giulio Albanese

The effects of President Donald Trump’s decision to drastically weaken (not to say dismantle) the United States Agency for International Development (USAid) upon taking office, on 20 January, are being felt. Thousands of USAid programmes and contracts were immediately suspended, with dramatic consequences for many of the world’s most struggling countries. At the time of this article’s publishing (14 March in the Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano), we are still in the 90-day suspension period to review all foreign assistance funding, which according to the new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, responds to the “mandate from the American people” to focus on “American national interests”. Rubio, who took over as interim leader of USAid after chief of staff Matt Hopson — whom Trump had recently appointed — resigned following the cuts, explained that the fate of USAid depends on the answers to three questions: “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”.

In theory, the three months were set aside to review USAid projects, which the US administration accuses of waste and corruption. Even before the review however, Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, who entered the White House as the head of the new Department of Government Efficiency (doge), said USAid is a “criminal organization” at the service of the world’s political left and that Trump agreed it should be shut down. In any case, for now, a large number of agency employees have been placed on leave; funds for a large majority of the programmes have been frozen; and thousands of agency collaborators have been fired with very little warning. Sources report that international aid will be administered by the State Department after the drastic changes, which will cut 90 percent of spending previously foreseen for 2025 and, as stated, of the amount not yet allocated, but included, in the 2024 budget. In other words, 54 billion out of 60 billion dollars budgeted for the remainder of this year will be cut, bringing the remaining balance to only one percent of the federal balance.

The result of these decisions risks causing — and in part has already triggered — extremely serious consequences for a number of low-income countries where development aid equals even more than 10 percent of the gross national income, with immediate losses estimated to be around three percent. Several of the world’s 26 poorest countries are in Africa (Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Uganda and Liberia). Until now USAid has supplied about one-fifth of humanitarian assistance to those countries. It must be stressed that some of the USAid programmes under Washington’s scrutiny and certainly destined to be cancelled are classified as “emergency response” programmes, although they are for relatively long-term crises. Official development assistance (oda) provides an estimated 223 billion dollars — even those are insufficient — of aid around the world. In other words, some 300 dollars annually for each of the world’s 700 million human beings living in absolute poverty. Without contributions from the US, that number would fall by one-sixth.

The Centre for Global Development, which has its headquarters in Washington, closely monitors the United States’ cooperation policy. It tasked two researchers, Ian Mitchell and Sam Hughes, with analysing the consequences of the cuts. Their findings are illustrated in the article, “Which Countries Are Most Exposed to US Aid Cuts; And What Other Providers Can Do”. Mitchell and Hughes’ analysis of the cuts’ effects does not deviate from other authoritative opinions, including that of Catholic Relief Services (crs). This humanitarian organization headed by the United States bishops was forced to freeze all the programmes it had that were co-financed by USAid, which to date has provided around half of its 1.5-billion-dollar budget benefiting more than 200 million people around the world. Another organization in a similar situation is Caritas Internationalis, whose Secretary General, Alistair Dutton, released a statement on Trump’s decision. While Caritas recognizes “the right of any new administration to review its foreign aid strategy”, reads the press release, “the ruthless and chaotic way this callous decision is being implemented threatens the lives and dignity of millions. Stopping USAid will jeopardise essential services for hundreds of millions of people, undermine decades of progress in humanitarian and development assistance, destabilise regions that rely on this critical support, and condemn millions to dehumanizing poverty or even death”.

As for what other international aid providers can do for the food, health and education programmes in countries affected by Trump, as well as for people devastated by war and natural disasters, there is something to be said about the European Union. Although Trump is the main player in the attack on international solidarity and development aid policies, he is certainly not the only one, at a time when sovereigntist and xenophobic forces are gaining ground, even in some of the European Union’s founding countries. Unfortunately, this creates uncertainty around the possibility that the EU can finance the organizations and initiatives abandoned by USAid. The various member States spend around 50 billion euros on international cooperation each year. But it must also be made clear that most of these funds go to European companies active in so-called developing countries, not to mention the payments made to autocratic governments to get them to allow refugees and migrants attempting to reach Europe, to stay in their territory — usually in inhumane conditions which sometimes kill them.

In any case, the only budget increases happening at this time, although fortunately not yet approved, are, unfortunately, geared towards the madness of purchasing weapons (from the United States), thus confirming the EU’s ongoing loss of values. It may be useful to remind European political representatives, especially those who call themselves Catholic, perhaps even displaying crucifixes and brandishing rosaries as weapons against their enemies of the moment, that the Church’s teaching on the matter is clear and not circumventable. It is enough to go back to what Pope Francis wrote for the last G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro in a message read out by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, with which he renewed “the long-standing proposal of the Holy See, which calls for redirecting funds currently allocated to weapons and other military expenditures towards a global fund designed to address hunger and promote development in the most impoverished countries”.