A year after significant cuts to USAID, the Trump administration is planning to slash vital foreign aid once again. This time, even crucial humanitarian programs that were deemed lifesaving could be on the chopping block.
An internal email from the State Department suggests the end of humanitarian funding for seven African nations as part of a “responsible exit.” Countries like Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Zimbabwe will lose U.S. assistance that was critical for millions facing dire conditions. These aid projects were up for renewal until September but will now be canceled.
Previously, the U.S. had already cut aid to Afghanistan and Yemen, citing misuse of resources by terrorists. In contrast, the reasons for stopping aid to the seven new countries are less clear. The State Department claims there’s no strong connection between humanitarian aid and U.S. interests. This seems to reflect an “America First” approach to foreign assistance, where help is given based on national interest rather than need.
About 6.2 million people in these countries are currently facing extreme hardship, according to UN data. Unfortunately, without much to offer in return, their desperation may not count for much in Washington’s decisions.
The State Department indicated they will redirect funding to nine other countries, including Ethiopia and Nigeria. New health-financing agreements are in place for some, but these mainly target health systems and do not address hunger or displacement crises. Humanitarian groups worry that funding will be delayed or insufficient to meet real needs.
The cuts follow a pattern of drastic aid reductions that began last year. With the help of Elon Musk, the administration eliminated a staggering 83% of U.S. foreign aid. Even funding for programs combatting tuberculosis and basic food relief is now at risk. Only the most immediate lifesaving projects seem to be spared.
Despite officials assuring the public that lifesaving aid remains intact, several reports highlight the dire consequences of these cuts. In Somalia, a severe drought has exacerbated the hunger crisis, prompting fears of famine. Health facilities are closing, and organizations like Doctors Without Borders have reported a sharp rise in deaths among malnourished children.
Jocelyn Wyatt, CEO of the Minnesota-based nonprofit Alight, has seen firsthand the impact of funding cuts. Many facilities her organization runs will close, leaving thousands without care. The precarious situation in Sudan, where civil war rages, highlights the urgency. Alight had to shut down clinics just as local needs peaked, leaving refugees without access to critical health services.
Concerns about these aid reductions are echoed in discussions on social media. Many advocate for a more compassionate foreign aid policy that prioritizes human lives over political interests. As conditions worsen, it becomes clear that the U.S. commitment to global humanitarian aid will need reevaluating.
Overall, the future of foreign aid hangs in the balance, raising questions about priorities and the very definition of lifesaving assistance. Countries in crisis are facing even more uncertainty, and their pleas for help may go unheard in a landscape shifting towards national interests over humanitarian needs.
For more insights on international aid trends, check out the World Food Program.
