The decision by Donald Trump to suspend U.S. humanitarian aid and dismantle its main distributing agency, USAID, is triggering an unprecedented shakeup across global humanitarian organizations. The United States remains the largest donor by a wide margin, contributing nearly half of all government humanitarian assistance. This funding is essential for United Nations agencies, from UNICEF which helps children to the FAO which leads food distribution.
In the current UN humanitarian system, all travel and major contracts have been canceled, except for essential activities, until further notice, according to two UN agency officials. Most importantly, one of those sources notes, is that on-ground transport of food, water, and vaccines has been halted in many cases.
The blow lands as the global humanitarian system was already under heavy strain. Needs in a world at war, with tens of millions displaced, are rising fast, yet funding from nations has not kept pace.
The withdrawal of what is often described as the humanitarian arm of the U.S. government has been swift and relentless. The website is no longer accessible, offices have closed, and more than 10,000 employees have been told not to report to work. In 2023, USAID managed around €40 billion, just under 1% of the federal budget. It supported aid to 130 countries, including Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, the Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria.
It was established by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 as an independent agency intended to counter Soviet influence during the Cold War. The premise was that American security depended on the economic progress of others. Has that link faded? What risks does the United States run by giving up the main tool to exercise soft power? Will rivals such as China and Russia fill the vacuum if the suspension becomes permanent?
Hit on NGOs, risk for rich countries
The impact is already evident on the ground. USAID financed HIV medicines in many African countries. In the Sahrawi refugee camps in Tindouf, Algeria, nearly 200,000 people depend on UNHCR, which receives a large portion of its funding from the United States. They rely on feeding, health services, and waste collection in those desert camps because there is no robust local tax system for these permanent refugees. Notices of cuts have already appeared. Another major impact is seen in Colombia, where the United States funded dozens of humanitarian projects linked to the demilitarization of guerrillas and the peace process.
“We are extremely concerned, both about the drastic cut itself and about the cascade effects that could hit other states or financial institutions”, says Penélope Berlamas, vice president and spokesperson for the Coordinating Committee of Development Organizations, which includes many Spanish humanitarian groups such as Action Against Hunger, Caritas, Oxfam, and the Peace Movement. “We live in a period with the highest number of conflicts since World War II, and that means a record 120 million people displaced. Against these global threats—climate, health, or armed conflict—walls are not tall enough. If the main funder of aid is cut and other countries do not step up, millions face extreme misery.”
Save The Children, for example, collaborates with the U.S. agency on a health service in Niger called USAID Kulawa, part of the U.S. Sahel program designed to improve life in the Sahel, a region with high migration pressures in Spain.
The abrupt cut in funds poses a major risk not only for developing countries but also for advanced economies. Soft power wanes, influence declines, and desperate migration increases as people lose the basics needed for a dignified life. A false sense of security is created, according to the Coordinating Committee.
“The suspension affected organizations in other countries that rely on USAID funding or on UN partner agencies. It hits projects by Doctors of the World, Save the Children, and Oxfam”, Berlamas notes. “We fear social and humanitarian consequences, and we also worry about the image these cuts project, fueling doubts about humanitarian organizations.”
The Foreign Ministry has not provided responses to inquiries about how aid programs in Spain are affected by the suspension of funding to development agencies.
Western nations within the United Nations pledged to contribute at least 0.7% of GDP to address global inequalities created by a system partly shaped by the West, which benefits them. With this unilateral move, the Trump administration challenges decades of cooperation. The shift was sudden, with no warning, and in a matter of days the U.S. commitment to international development, which had supported U.S. influence for more than sixty years, was placed in question.