IMPACT OF THE FREEZE ON US DEVELOPMENT AID #
INTRODUCTION #
The axe fell on January 20, 2025. By presidential decree, the Trump administration signaled the end (temporarily, we are told, for 90 days of cynical “reevaluation”) of American foreign aid, notably through USAID. A shockwave, a veritable earthquake whose aftershocks are already violently shaking international organizations, our NGO partners on the ground, and, above all, the most vulnerable populations.
This brutal decision, the full consequences of which we have not yet fully understood, has directly impacted the very reflection that IRED has initiated on the financial autonomy of development organizations in Africa. What a tragic irony!
As we seek paths to independence, the demonstration of our extreme vulnerability is being imposed upon us in the most brutal manner possible.
It seemed crucial to us to revisit the reported facts, not to feel sorry for ourselves, but to analyze the disastrous consequences of this dependence and reinforce our conviction that we must urgently change course. We will focus on the abrupt halt, which appears to be a political maneuver, and then on the appalling human cost of this decision. We will then discuss how the very future of our actions is being held hostage, before highlighting the illusion of easy compensation and the confirmation of a deeper systemic crisis.
1- THE SUDDEN STOP: WHEN AID BECOMES A POLITICAL WEAPON #
Make no mistake, this freeze is not a simple administrative pause. It is an immediate shutdown, a planned end to numerous activities. Overnight, grants are suspended, contracts terminated. Organizations are financially strangled and forced to urgently close their doors.
The suspension of aid resulted in an immediate halt to new spending and the suspension, or even termination, of existing grants and contracts.
Organizations were forced to shut down urgently, such as a clinic for LGBTQI+ men in South Africa offering comprehensive HIV treatment, funded by USAID and PEPFAR: “We received a stop-work notice in January, so we activated it and started communicating it to staff.”
The World Food Programme (WFP) also had to close its southern Africa office due to financial constraints linked to US budget cuts.
Action Against Hunger (ACF) has had to close 50 vital aid projects, with dramatic consequences in terms of treating child malnutrition: “This is no longer a suspension, it is a complete cessation of this American funding; we are forced to stop everything.”
The example of this clinic for LGBTQI+ men in South Africa, providing lifesaving HIV treatment thanks to USAID/PEPFAR, is revolting: “‘we received a stop-work notice in January […] so we activated it…'” The shutdown is immediate, without notice, without consideration for the lives at stake. The World Food Program itself closes its southern Africa office. Action Against Hunger (ACF) is forced to abandon 50 lifesaving aid projects. It is a chilling demonstration that a signature in Washington can destroy years of effort and dedication on the ground. Aid, here, is no longer a development tool, but rather a political weapon.
2- THE HUMAN COST: LIVES ON END, RIGHTS VIOLATED #
Behind the budget lines and administrative decisions, there are human lives. Men, women, children. And the human cost of this freeze is appalling. Access to health services, food aid, and the most basic assistance has been cut off for thousands, even millions of people.
- The withdrawal of aid has a direct impact on vulnerable populations, who are deprived of access to health services, food aid, and other forms of assistance. The closure of the clinic in South Africa raises concerns for the LGBTQI+ community: “This sudden closure raises concerns within the community and among those affected, who no longer have access to the services and treatment they need.”
- UN AIDS warns that an additional 6.3 million people could die from HIV over the next four years if aid is not restored.
- ACF estimates that around 1.5 million people it planned to treat for malnutrition this year, including 800,000 severely malnourished children, will no longer receive aid: “that’s around 1,005 people we planned to treat for malnutrition this year with its American funds, including 800,000 who are severely malnourished, meaning they are in danger of dying.”
In South Africa, the LGBTQI+ community is plunged into anxiety, deprived of access to treatment. The stark figure put forward by UNAIDS – 6.3 million potential deaths from HIV in four years if nothing changes – is dizzying and testifies to the scale of the looming health catastrophe. What can we say to the 1.5 million people, including 800,000 children at risk of death, who ACF will no longer be able to treat for malnutrition this year?
And the drama doesn’t end there. The quest for justice for victims of mass crimes is also being sacrificed on the altar of politics. In Liberia, hope for a war crimes court is fading: “‘Everything is at risk of being lost.'” In Ukraine, Syria, and Colombia, experts are being suspended, staff laid off, and budgets slashed, compromising crucial investigations into atrocities, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence. How can we dare talk about justice when the resources of those seeking it are being cut? “‘We’re just trying to survive…'” admits a SJAC official in Syria. Survival, that’s what we’ve been reduced to.
3- THE FUTURE HOSTAGE: POLITICIZATION AND DISTRUST #
Beyond the immediate halt, the very future of cooperation is in doubt. The announced “reassessment” raises fears of the worst: an examination of projects through a prism hostile to diversity and gender equity. Projects targeting women, girls, and marginalized groups—often the most needed—are in the hot seat.
- Transitional justice projects are also being hit hard. In Liberia, a high-level delegation consulting on a court for war and economic crimes was caught off guard by the aid freeze: “Everything is at risk of being lost,” according to one member of the delegation.
- In Ukraine, the work of nearly 40 experts from the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group for Ukraine (ACA) has been suspended, and €89 million in justice funding is at risk.
- In Syria, the Syrian Justice and Accountability Center (SJAC) has had to lay off 70% of its staff and cut salaries due to the suspension of US funding, jeopardizing the analysis of crucial documents to identify those responsible for disappearances. Roger Lu Phillips of the SJAC said, “We are simply trying to survive these three months […] If the freeze continues or if the litigation takes too long, the future of the SJAC will be in question.”
- In Colombia, the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) risks losing approximately 2% of its annual budget, which could hamper the investigation and prosecution of important cases of sexual violence and crimes against minorities.
Even more seriously, there is a growing fear that future aid will become completely politicized, tied solely to the US administration’s foreign policy objectives. Aid with ideological strings attached would not only become less relevant, but also unacceptable to many. As this NGO leader puts it: “I think many organizations will probably not want to get funding from the US government in the future, for fear of what it might mean…” The result: distrust sets in, partnerships crack, and collaboration become suspect. How can we accept aid that becomes such a blatant political instrument?
4- THE ILLUSION OF COMPENSATION AND THE ECHO OF A SYSTEMIC CRISIS #
Faced with this massive withdrawal, some are hoping for rapid compensation from other donors. Let’s not kid ourselves: the void left by the world’s largest donor won’t be filled anytime soon. Experts are pessimistic: “There isn’t a lot of government funding available in this area,” comments Stephen Rapp.
Martin Petrov, a consultant helping to design hybrid justice mechanisms, emphasizes the importance of US support for internationalized courts: “I don’t think most people realize the tremendous impact of US technical and financial support in enabling conflict-torn countries to establish criminal justice mechanisms and come to terms with their past.”
Philanthropy itself shows its limits. The impact of American support, both technical and financial, was considerable, as Martin Petrov points out, particularly for justice mechanisms.
Concerns About the Future Direction of U.S. Aid:
- There is a fear that aid projects will now be viewed in a light hostile to diversity and gender equity, and that projects focused on women, girls or marginalized groups will be particularly at risk.
- Organizations fear that future aid will be heavily politicized and tied to the US administration’s foreign policy objectives, making funding less attractive or more restrictive. A US-based criminal justice organization official said: “I think the politicization of these funds is a real problem […] I think many organizations will probably not want to get funding from the US government in the future, for fear of what it might mean if they were required to closely follow the Trump administration’s foreign policy objectives.”
Reactions and Adaptation Efforts:
- Legal attempts are underway in the United States to challenge the aid freeze.
- Some local organizations are trying to adapt, but the scale and suddenness of the cuts make this extremely difficult: “It’s a bit like when the financial crash happened. When you suddenly remove one big player from the ecosystem, everything else collapses,” explains Taylor of Every Casualty Counts.
- In Cameroon, faced with the freeze on US aid to the health sector, particularly for the fight against HIV/AIDS, the government has implemented a mitigation plan. The permanent secretary of the National Committee for the Fight against AIDS assures that there will be no interruption in antiretroviral treatment, which is primarily financed by the Global Fund and domestic funds. Efforts to redeploy staff and reallocate funds are underway. The Minister of Public Health stated: “We have instructed our regional collaborators […] to continue as if nothing had happened because we will find a way to […] substitute […] with national funding.”
Criticisms of the Effectiveness of Previous Aid:
- Niagalé Bagayoko, president of the African Security Sector Network, highlights a groundswell in Africa rejecting foreign aid as it has been provided, on the grounds that beneficiary populations receive little benefit from it due to costly management systems that are poorly adapted to local realities.
The crisis goes beyond individual projects; it affects the entire ecosystem, all the way to “International Geneva.” It is, as one observer puts it, like a “financial crash”: “When you suddenly eliminate a major player from the ecosystem, everything else collapses.” Of course, adaptation efforts are taking place, legal challenges are being attempted, and national mitigation plans are being outlined, as in Cameroon, where the government is seeking to “substitute […] with national funding” for HIV treatment. This is commendable, and it points the way toward the necessary national empowerment.
But this crisis ultimately only confirms what many in Africa already think, as Niagalé Bagayoko reminds us: a fundamental rejection of this external aid dispensed through costly systems, disconnected from reality, and whose benefits for the populations are often derisory. This American freeze highlights the failure of a model.
CONCLUSION: ELECTROSHOCK NECESSARY FOR AUTONOMY #
The picture is bleak, the consequences dramatic. This freeze on American aid is a human tragedy and a terrible blow to development and justice efforts. But it should also serve as a salutary electroshock. It exposes in stark, brutal terms the deadly dangers of excessive dependence on a single or a few donors whose decisions are guided by shifting political interests.
While parts of the international community and some countries are trying to adapt and find alternative solutions, the void left by the withdrawal of the world’s largest donor is immense and difficult to fill in the short term. Uncertainty about the duration and future direction of US aid adds further complexity to an already critical situation, highlighting the vulnerability of humanitarian and development actors to the political decisions of a major donor.
Faced with this impending disaster, the only dignified and strategic response is to accelerate our march toward financial autonomy. Diversify our sources, yes, but above all, mobilize our own local resources, develop our own economic activities, strengthen our management capacities, build our own financial institutions. It is time, more than ever, to take our destiny into our own hands, to build our own solutions, anchored in our realities and driven by our own will. The time is no longer for lamentation, but for resolute action to build this independence that will protect us from political upheavals from elsewhere. This is the only viable path to development controlled by and for Africans.
Paul Gabriel FOLEU
