Trump Cuts to USAID: A New Reality For Humanitarian Aid

Executive Order Pauses Development Aid, Citing Misalignment with U.S. Interests

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14169, titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” initiating a sweeping reassessment of U.S. global assistance. The directive, which includes a 90-day suspension of most foreign development aid, outlines a sharp pivot in U.S. foreign policy, stating that the current foreign aid apparatus is often “antithetical to American values” and can destabilize international peace by promoting initiatives that conflict with U.S. interests.

According to Section 1 of the order, the administration views many existing aid programs as counterproductive, promoting values abroad that undermine domestic and international harmony. Section 2 affirms that future aid must fully align with the president’s foreign policy, while Section 3 mandates an immediate halt to new aid obligations and disbursements across federal departments and agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been tasked with enforcing the pause through its budgetary oversight authority.

Massive Cuts to USAID and Global Consequences

Less than six weeks after the order was issued, the administration announced on February 26 that it had eliminated more than 90% of foreign aid contracts managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), slashing approximately $60 billion from global assistance programs. In 2023, U.S. foreign aid reached 173 of the 196 countries recognized by the State Department. Key recipients included Ukraine ($16.6 billion), Israel ($3.3 billion), and Ethiopia ($1.8 billion), together accounting for nearly a third of all aid.

Experts warn the sweeping cuts could have dire humanitarian repercussions. Global health leaders predict sharp increases in preventable deaths due to disruptions in food assistance, HIV/AIDS treatment, tuberculosis care, and malaria prevention. In Afghanistan alone, over nine million people are projected to lose access to health and protection services. A university-led program that helped more than 600 Afghan women pursue higher education since the Taliban's 2021 takeover has suspended future operations. An additional 330 women scheduled to arrive in Bangladesh for studies now face indefinite delays.

Women’s rights advocates fear the aid freeze could exacerbate Afghanistan’s economic collapse. The Washington-based Center for Global Development estimates the country’s gross national income could contract by 7% if U.S. support is halted for a year. Limited internet access further compounds the crisis for Afghan women, many of whom depend on foreign-funded mobile data to attend online classes. Volunteer groups like Afghan Female Student Outreach, already stretched thin, are struggling to meet soaring demand as international support vanishes.

In northeast Syria, where 2.5 million people rely on aid after more than a decade of civil war and ISIS insurgency, the U.S. has terminated approximately $230 million in contracts with the World Food Programme and other humanitarian organizations. The largest program affected, valued at $111 million, provided daily food primarily bread to 1.5 million Syrians. Aid agencies warn that the loss of U.S. funding could trigger widespread hunger and social instability in a region already on edge.

South Sudan, which hosts tens of thousands of refugees fleeing conflict in neighboring Sudan, has also seen devastating consequences. Humanitarian organizations report worsening conditions at border camps, where overcrowding and poor sanitation are creating public health crises. In one recent incident, eight people including five children died after walking three hours in extreme heat to reach a medical facility following the closure of seven U.S.-funded health centers in Jonglei State. Save the Children, once operating 27 such centers across the region, has been forced to reduce services at 20 of them, laying off one-third of its staff.

The aid cuts extend beyond food and health to broader global development and security efforts. Analysts caution that the unraveling of support networks will not only heighten immediate human suffering but also weaken long-term international stability. In a leaked State Department document obtained by the Associated Press, officials outlined the termination of programs across dozens of countries, with some regions facing complete aid withdrawal.

A System Under Strain: The Future of Humanitarian Aid

The implications of the aid freeze are rippling through the international nonprofit sector. Hundreds of international NGOs, already competing for limited resources, are being forced into rapid transformation. Observers anticipate a wave of forced mergers, closures, and reorganizations. Organizations will likely need to specialize in narrow fields such as emergency nutrition or water and sanitation to survive, abandoning broader mandates in a bid for sustainability.

United Nations agencies, long beneficiaries of U.S. support, are also under pressure. Experts say these agencies must now demonstrate operational efficiency and resolve the inherent tension between their coordination and implementation roles. Some may shift toward serving as "coordinators of last resort" rather than direct aid providers. The aid freeze marks a watershed moment for the Western-led humanitarian system. Aid organizations face agonizing choices as funding dries up. Despite the flaws of the current aid model, the rapid contraction of this system is expected to leave millions without essential services.

Analysts say three hard truths must now be acknowledged. First, the era of expansive U.S. foreign aid is over, at least in the near term. Second, no combination of other donors, private foundations, or philanthropists can immediately fill the gap left by U.S. withdrawal. And third, while localizing aid remains a long-term goal, it cannot replace the lost funding quickly enough to avert a humanitarian crisis.

Adapting to a New Reality

In the face of these challenges, experts are calling for a fundamental restructuring of the humanitarian sector. This includes embracing radical transparency, consolidating overlapping organizations, and prioritizing life-saving interventions over broader development goals.

“We must be honest about the limitations of what we can now achieve,” said Lucy Ferriss of Afghan Female Student Outreach. “But even with fewer resources, the mission to alleviate suffering cannot be abandoned.”

While the world grapples with the consequences of the Trump administration’s shift, humanitarian leaders warn that inaction or denial will only deepen the crisis. The challenge now, they say, is to build a leaner, more adaptive aid system; one capable of operating under extreme constraints, yet still committed to saving lives.