Photo courtesy of Council for Foreign Relations

In the last two months, the humanitarian sector has been thrown into panic and uncertainty. The evaporation of U.S. development and emergency funding – in addition to cuts by France, Germany, and Britain – threatens millions with war, famine, and disease.

In the hours following his inauguration, re-elected president Donald Trump, issued an immediate 90-day freeze on all foreign aid, and subsequent suspension of the worldwide operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. It is a move that has resulted in worldwide disruptions to the delivery of life-saving assistance, and one that has plunged the efforts of humanitarian relief into turmoil.

Turbulent times for U.S. aid

In 2023, the USAID distributed $62.4 billion in aid to more than 130 countries and 47 percent of the world aid efforts flowed from Washington. Yet since aid disbursements have been frozen, the agency has been described by Elon Musk as a ‘criminal organisation,’ which according to Trump, was ‘run by a bunch of radical lunatics.’ It has since been largely disbanded, its headquarters and website shut down, and its workforce either laid-off or issued administrative leave.

It was ‘time for it to die’ Musk added, and only humanitarian aid classified as ‘life-saving’ has been awarded a reprieve from the freeze. But the exemptions are ambiguous, and as staff continue to be axed from USAID, payment systems remain offline, and the process to obtain waivers of exemption have become increasingly confused.

A looming double blow

As looming uncertainty rises amongst NGOs, it has become clear that long and medium-term development programmes will nearly certainly be forced to cease; and they are apprehensive of a double blow.

Across much of Europe, EU funding is disbursed through Multi-Donor Action Programmes, whereby receiving European aid is contingent on recipients attaining support from additional sources. Once their U.S. funding is lost, many NGOs fear that their EU funding will also be in jeopardy.

A turning inward

The aid cuts of the U.S. symbolise rising reform of America’s federal government, and the inward turn to put ‘America first,’ – but like the U.S. – a number of Europe’s most reliable donors are also cutting back.

Over the past two years, France has drastically reduced its financial commitments, which under the 2025 French finance bill is set to cut humanitarian aid by €2.1 billion. A reduction of 37 percent from the previous year; and several other countries are following suit.

Germany, the last remaining G7 country still meeting the agreed upon benchmark of 0.7 percent of Gross National Income (GNI) towards international aid, will itself cut foreign finance by over a billion Euros.

The backing of Britain

In turn, Britain last week announced it will do the same. The decision comes at a time when Donald Trump, tearing into his western allies, threatens to cut security ties with the European governments not willing to rise expenditure on their own militaries.

Mirroring this sentiment, the U.K. will cut overseas aid to 0.3 percent of GNI, from the 0.5 percent it is at now, and directly finance a rise in the defense budget from 2.3 percent to 2.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product by 2027. It is a decision ‘’broadly supported by national security and military figures,’’ but one whose advisability has been questioned.

The choice has been described by General Lord Richard Dannatt, former head of the British army, as ‘shortsighted’ and a ‘strategic mistake.’ He added, ‘I ran Britain’s army. I know what it needs. Don’t cut aid to fund defence.’

African upheaval

The funding crisis has unfortunately coincided with global upheaval. Last year, the world saw a record breaking 120 active conflicts. In Africa, more people than ever are hungry, and the continent is experiencing wider spread conflict than it has since the end of the Second World War.

In the last three years the unmet humanitarian requirements have already risen from 41 percent in 2022, to almost 70 percent in 2024. In Nairobi, food banks can no longer supply the hungry. In Sudan, first responders are unable to reach the victims of civil war. In Mauritanian refugee camps, tens of thousands face famine, and across Africa, millions search in vain for life-saving medication.

The cost to Kenya

U.S. funding alone accounted for $850 million worth of Kenya’s international assistance in 2023, $373 million of which funded Kenyan health programs. According to the World Health Organisation, Kenya has one of the world’s highest rates of HIV, with approximately 1.3 million people requiring HIV/AIDS medication.

According to UNAIDS, Kenya directly relies on the U.S. for 29 percent of its HIV-related spending, making it the 10th most reliant country in the world. But amid recent concerns of imminent shortages of antiretroviral medicines, clinics have already resorted to rationing.

A timely reprieve

A ruling passed by the U.S. Supreme Court on the 5 March, declared that pre-agreed upon aid payments must be made. It is a decisive reprieve, but one that recipients must learn not to rely upon.

The example above is just one of countless thousands, and a crucial reminder that nations must learn to not rely too heavily on monetary circumstances that could soon be out of their control. The Supreme Court’s ruling does not prohibit president Trump from reinstating the freeze, and the recipients of aid must presume that the circumstantial chaos grasping the future of international aid is here to stay.

Natasha Tisminieszky has an M.A. in Environment, Development and Policy