USAID Cuts: How One Decision May Lead To 14 Million Deaths by André Barros

In February 2025, the Trump administration made the decision to cut roughly 90% of USAID’s current contracts and programmes, amounting to around 60 billion dollars. The main argument that Donald Trump and, at the time, Elon Musk, used to justify the cuts was that helping other nations in need was not the priority of the United States, asserting Trump’s “America First” nationalist policy. A study now reports that the impact of the administration’s decision might lead to 14 million preventable deaths by 2030.

Scholars and critics often describe aid as functioning as a form of soft power, allowing donor countries to exert political influence on the Global South, in order to gain easier access to its natural resources that fuel their economies.

USAID stands for the United States Agency for International Development, which was established as an extension of the US government supporting development and humanitarian efforts in 130 countries. It has tackled global crises such as food shortages, epidemics, and war relief. Much of USAID's money is handed out as grants or is subcontracted to aid groups and NGOs. In the 1960s, it was part of efforts to eradicate smallpox and polio. In the 1990s and early 2000s, it provided care, treatment, and prevention services for HIV/AIDS. An independent, peer-reviewed analysis in ___The Lancet___ estimated that USAID assistance has saved a staggering 91 million lives over the last two decades.

Aid to the Global South, while often being depicted as an act of kindness by mainstream media, is not devoid of strong criticism. Scholars and critics often describe aid as functioning as a form of soft power, allowing donor countries to exert political influence on the Global South, in order to gain easier access to its natural resources that fuel their economies. Critics have also pointed out that poorly designed aid can disrupt local markets or foster long-term dependency. For years, world leaders and scholars have been tackling this issue, providing ways in which aid can be more ethical and rooted in local economies. The President of Zambia, Hakainde Hichilema, stated in an interview that the cuts to aid were “long overdue”, claiming that “it forces us to grow our economies and to do the things we should have been doing. It’s painful for now. There is a shock. But longer term, it’s a good thing.”

While these criticisms may have merit, the current USAID cuts show that the immediate removal of aid may have severe consequences. A study by a UCLA Fielding School of Public Health researcher found that recent U.S. foreign aid cuts may lead to more than 14 million additional deaths globally by 2030, including more than 4.5 million children under five. The global study was co-authored by researchers from the United States, Spain, Brazil, and Mozambique, analyzing data from 133 countries. They also found that an American taxpayer would only be contributing 17 cents per day to USAID, around $64 per year, a very low amount considering the impact it could have globally. A recent article by ___The New Yorker___ estimated that, as of November 2025, the cuts had caused 600,000 preventable deaths, two-thirds of them being children.

As soon as the cuts took place, the heart-breaking stories of its effects started flooding the news. Reports quickly emerged of clinics closing, food distribution programmes shutting down, and local humanitarian workers losing the resources needed to operate. An example was reported by NPR news, where a father in war-torn Myanmar had to watch his 2-year-old son die of hunger in his arms as he waited for assistance from the USAID workers. This has been the story for the countries most affected, including South Sudan, Somalia, and the DR Congo.

What made the cuts even more impactful was the freezing of the foreign assistance overnight. Instead of giving time for NGOs and humanitarian organizations to find new sources of funding from other countries or donors, the US’s sudden cuts to aid gave little time for local NGOs, health ministries, and community-based organizations to adapt or seek alternative funding.

What made the cuts even more impactful was the freezing of the foreign assistance overnight. Instead of giving time for NGOs and humanitarian organizations to find new sources of funding from other countries or donors, the US’s sudden cuts to aid gave little time for local NGOs, health ministries, and community-based organizations to adapt or seek alternative funding. Many of these groups are led by local professionals and embedded within their communities, yet depend on international financing to sustain essential services. The abrupt withdrawal left them scrambling to keep clinics open, retain staff, and continue food and vaccination programmes, undermining years of locally driven progress.

The US was not the only country cutting its aid; Europe has not been too far behind. France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and the United Kingdom have all slashed their aid significantly in 2025, with reports from Reuters claiming that with the current cuts from the US and Europe, preventable deaths by 2030 might jump to the 22 million mark.

USAID shows that aid is effective in combating health and food emergencies in times of war, famine, and epidemics, which would otherwise lead to severe casualties. The current US and European cuts on aid convey a new world, where many of the most vulnerable countries may not receive enough assistance to alleviate the crisis that they face. More than that, the cuts to aid are showing the fundamental issue with our world order. When millions of preventable deaths can be triggered by a single political decision, what does that say about the political system we have built? If the lives of people are in the hands of election cycles from countries miles away, what does that say about sovereignty, self-determination or post-colonialism? Should the question really be about aid?