Digest #9: Ten perspectives on the U.S. foreign aid shift
It has been difficult to read the news in the past few weeks and not be met with another Trump-related headline. Wading through these minute-by-minute updates has been a serious challenge for staying up to date and cutting through to the key implications.
The short and medium-term implications of the U.S. foreign policy shift are seismic. What funding has been cut? Who will be impacted? Will funding be reinstated? Who can fill U.S. gaps? What does this mean for the stability and ambition of multilateral institutions and processes like the Financing for Development Conference this year??
Here is our roundup of 10 readings to better understand the situation and hopefully be in a better situation to react.
OTT offers support to funders who wish to tackle this challenge head-on. Find out more.
Interested in tailored insights on the latest analysis in your sector? Get in touch with OTT’s Research Support Service: Edris Nikjooy
Setting the scene
For those with a coveted FT subscription, this piece looks to provide some clarity on exactly the type of questions we raise above.?
The FT argues that Trump’s aggressive cuts to USAID—gutting staff from thousands to just a few hundred—have left a massive void in global development and health, with disease tracking systems failing and critical programmes like Pepfar, which has invested over $110bn in HIV/AIDS relief, facing serious disruption. While aid sceptics point to reducing dependency, the FT suggests this sudden pullback is more reckless than strategic, putting global disease control at risk and leaving other donors scrambling to fill a $63.5bn gap.
The numbers perspective
Which Countries Are Most Exposed to US Aid Cuts; And What Other Providers Can Do, Center for Global Development
The CGD warns that a prolonged freeze on USAID funds would deliver a major economic shock, with 23 countries losing over 1% of their GNI—and eight, including South Sudan, Somalia, and Afghanistan, facing a devastating 3% or more hit. With USAID historically focusing on the poorest nations, Germany, Canada, and Japan are best placed to step up, but no single donor can fully replace the U.S., leaving fragile states at risk of deeper instability.
The climate perspective
On a more optimistic note, Ian Bremmer argues that despite Trump’s push to expand fossil fuels—rolling back regulations, cutting green incentives, and reopening federal lands for drilling—the clean energy transition is too far along to be stopped. While pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement and cutting UN climate funding will slow progress in some emerging economies, China’s rapid expansion in renewables and dominance of clean-tech supply chains will keep the global shift on track.
The health perspective
Ken Opalo sees the U.S. aid cuts as a wake-up call, arguing that many African governments have dangerously outsourced essential services, especially in health, to foreign donors—Uganda, for example, relies on external funding for over 75% of its health budget. While the immediate fallout is severe, with disruptions to disease surveillance and treatment, Opalo warns that the real crisis is long-term aid dependence, as seen in Ghana’s recent confirmation that it will seek to plug the gap in funding its health surveillance programmes through domestic resources.
The security perspective
Experts React: The Challenges and Opportunities for the Trump Administration in Africa, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
The CSIS explores how Trump’s second term could reshape U.S.-Africa relations, with a range of experts highlighting both risks and opportunities. Rafiq Raji sees a chance for the U.S. to back Africa’s green industrialisation, shifting away from extractive mining models toward local processing and job creation—especially as China is already adapting to this demand. Meanwhile, Brigadier General Saleh Bala argues that Nigeria and other African nations will look for U.S. leadership in security and democracy, warning that Washington must not only respond to military coups but also engage more consistently when democratic institutions are undermined.
The geopolitical perspective
The ISS Africa argues that with Trump’s America turning inward, Europe has a strategic opportunity to reset its relationship with Africa—if it can overcome policy inertia and outdated approaches. With Africa’s critical minerals, expanding markets, and young workforce aligning with Europe’s energy and labour needs, this think tank sees a chance for Europe to counterbalance both China’s extractive trade practices and U.S. protectionism by deepening trade, investment, and digital cooperation.
The power perspective
Kathryn Mathers argues that while the humanitarian aid system is deeply flawed—entrenching U.S. economic interests, pushing American values, and reinforcing a narrative of helplessness in the Global South—Trump’s abrupt shutdown is the worst way to dismantle it. She critiques USAID’s long history of tying funding to U.S. priorities, but sees this sudden pause as reckless and hypocritical. Cutting off assistance without a plan, she warns, will worsen global instability, drive more migration—the very issue Trump wants to curb—and leave crises fueled by U.S. policies even harder to address.
The historical perspective
Sabotaging the Pax Americana, Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman argues that Trump and Musk’s dismantling of USAID isn’t just about foreign aid—it’s a wrecking ball to the Pax Americana, the post-war system that cemented U.S. global leadership through alliances, trade, and diplomacy. He traces this back to the aftermath of World War II, when instead of extracting wealth from defeated nations, the U.S. launched the Marshall Plan, invested in rebuilding Europe and Japan, and fostered prosperity through an open international trading system, notably through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Unlike past empires that relied on military force, America built influence through economic strength, trust, and a reputation for honoring agreements—something now being rapidly undone. By gutting USAID, threatening trade deals, and even floating the idea of annexing allied territories, Krugman warns that the U.S. is alienating partners, sabotaging its own power, and making rivals like China stronger at the worst possible moment.
The Philanthropy perspective
Kellea Miller argues that with USAID gutted and governments like Sweden and the Netherlands slashing aid—amounting to nearly $78 billion in lost annual funding—philanthropy must step up to protect civil society and human rights. Yet, even philanthropy is in flux, with key funders scaling back, putting up to $1 billion in human rights funding at risk by 2028. She urges funders to take decisive action: strengthen collaboration through crisis coordination models, resist risk aversion by doubling down on support for vulnerable movements, and tap into new funding sources, including the $84 trillion wealth transfer expected in the coming decades. Above all, she calls on philanthropic leaders to actively push back against the rollback of rights, using their influence to defend democracy rather than retreat in fear.
The multilateral perspective
As part of their leading coverage of the USAID cuts, Devex explores whether the U.S. could go even further by pulling out of the World Bank—an unlikely but not impossible scenario given Trump’s executive order reviewing U.S. commitments to international institutions. While withdrawal would strip the U.S. of its veto power and hand greater influence to China, it could also destabilise the bank itself, with all three major credit rating agencies warning that uncertainty over U.S. involvement threatens the financial stability of multilateral development banks—key players in funding development and climate initiatives. The article also features some very useful flowcharts breaking down how a withdrawal or dilution of U.S. shares would work.
What else should we have picked? Comment below with your favourite articles this month.