Trump’s aid cuts plunge humanitarian sector into existential crisis

An Ethiopian man carries a USAID donated sack of wheat on his shoulders to be distributed in the town of Agula in northern Ethiopia, May 2021. Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has come with sweeping cuts to humanitarian aid. As the impact is already being felt on the ground, aid workers are struggling with a major upheaval in their operating environment.

Donald Trump marked his return to the White House this year with an unprecedented attack on the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Republican president accused the agency – responsible for US development and humanitarian aid worldwide – of being run by “radical-left lunatics” and claimed that there was “tremendous fraud” going on, without providing any evidence.

At his request, most of the agency’s programmes were suspended pending review. On March 10, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that 83% of them would be terminated.

The dismantling of USAID, combined with recent budget cuts from other traditional donors, marks a turning point for humanitarian aid. The sector is facing an unprecedented funding crisis at a time when conflicts and emergencies are piling up. Humanitarian organisations are being forced into impossible choices as they decide who gets life-saving assistance, and who does not.

Series: the future of aid (1/3)

This article is the first in a three-part series exploring the future of humanitarian aid as the United States and other key Western donors disengage. The second article will examine whether emerging economies or private actors can fill the funding gap. The final piece will trace the history of US foreign assistance and how the country came to dominate global aid.

In 2023, USAID had a budget of roughly $40 billion and operated in over 100 countries. It accounted for more than half of total US spending on aid – around $70 billion annually, including some military assistance.

The recently suspended initiatives include food distributions for communities hit by drought and conflict in Ethiopia, and maternal and child health programmes in Haiti.

A demonstration in Washington against the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID, February 5, 2025. Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Programmes shut down

The collapse of USAID has sent shockwaves through the humanitarian sector, which depends on the US for about 40% of its funding. While the full scale of the cuts remains unclear, their effects are already being felt.

Several UN agencies rely heavily on US contributions – either through USAID or directly from the US State Department. These include the World Food Programme (WFP), the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO), from which the Trump administration has withdrawn.

The UN has warned that over nine million people in Afghanistan could lose access to healthcare and protection services. Cash assistance for a million Ukrainians may be halted, and programmes supporting refugees from the war in Sudan risk running out of funds.

Outside the UN system, many NGOs also rely on US support. Thousands of their contracts are being cancelled under the new administration, forcing project closures worldwide.

+ For more on how US cuts disproportionately affect women and HIV prevention programmes, listen to the latest episode of our podcast Inside Geneva (in English).

“NGOs now have to make tough choices about which projects to keep, which ones to cut, or which ones can be transferred to other actors,” says Eileen Morrow, head of policy and advocacy at ICVA, a Geneva-based network of NGOs. “We’re talking about really difficult decisions; it’s not about trimming the fat. Even prior to these cuts, millions of people had unmet needs and the system was strained.”

In Sudan – currently facing one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises – more than half a million people are expected to lose regular access to food. In Yemen, around 220,000 displaced people may no longer receive healthcare.

Ethiopian refugees who fled the conflict in Ethiopia’s Tigray region at the Hamdayet Reception Center, in the border town of Hamdayet, Sudan, November 2020. Keystone-SDA

‘A thunderclap’

“This is a thunderclap for the humanitarian sector,” says Véronique de Geoffroy, director of the think tank Groupe URD. “International aid actors are staring into an abyss when it comes to funding.”

The speed and scale of the US pullback took many by surprise. But it’s the combination of this withdrawal with budget cuts from other major donors that has triggered what many see as an existential crisis for international humanitarian action.

In late February, the UK announced its aid budget would shrink from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income. In Germany, coalition talks concluded in March with plans to abandon the 0.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) target. Belgium, France, Sweden and Switzerland have also announced reductions to international cooperation and humanitarian budgets.

Experts warn that these cuts could destabilise currently stable countries, further deepening global humanitarian needs – especially in Africa, where one in two states relies on external aid for over 30% of its health budget.

A sector in turmoil

The entire humanitarian system is being shaken. Even NGOs that don’t depend directly on US funding are feeling the pressure. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), for instance, receives 97% of its funding from private donors, but it is still affected.

“MSF doesn’t operate in a vacuum,” says Tarak Bach Baouab, head of advocacy at MSF Switzerland in Geneva. “We rely on field partners whose resources are now at risk.”

For example, MSF sources vaccine doses from local health ministries and uses the UN Humanitarian Air Service to fly staff into remote or insecure areas. In refugee camps where MSF provides medical care, other NGOs are responsible for water, food and shelter.

“If those services disappear due to lack of funds, we’ll have to take them on ourselves, at much higher cost. Or we’ll have to abandon certain projects,” Bach Baouab says.

Tom Fletcher, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, talks to reporters in Geneva, December 3, 2024. Keystone / Salvatore Di Nolfi

Prioritisation: a risky exercise

Tom Fletcher, the UN relief chief, has called for a “reset” in the sector, arguing that humanitarian aid now faces “a crisis of funding, morale and legitimacy”. His message: “We must regroup,” because “we cannot continue to do all of it with resources slashed. […] We will have to save as many people as we can with the money we have.”

Some aid officials welcome this focus on the most vulnerable, saying the sector must return to its core mission – providing water, food, medicines and shelter – rather than expanding into long-term services like education or job training.

Over the past two decades, global humanitarian needs have soared. In 2005, they stood at $5 billion. For 2025, the estimate has jumped nearly tenfold to $47 billion. Yet the funding gap is widening: last year, UN agencies received just 43% of the $50 billion they requested.

Ongoing conflicts and the effects of climate change are key drivers. Some experts argue that states have come to rely on humanitarian agencies to manage the consequences – rather than address the root causes – of these crises.

This is why Tom Fletcher’s message is so divisive. “The problem with this rhetoric is that if you manage to reduce your resources by 40% then you are feeding the narrative that the system is inefficient and dysfunctional,” says Tammam Aloudat, CEO of Geneva-based specialist media outlet The New Humanitarian.

According to him, talking about efficiency and prioritisation rather than a “failure of the international solidarity system” allows governments to reduce their contributions and avoid responsibility for deciding who will or will not continue to benefit from vital aid. This decision, he believes, goes beyond the moral responsibility of humanitarians.

Long-lasting changes

The humanitarian community has long called for reform – especially for more direct funding to local NGOs and more investment in prevention and preparedness. While some steps have been taken, most experts say progress has been slow.

“We’ve been pushing for systemic change for years, but nothing happens because of institutional inertia,” says Véronique de Geoffroy. “Crises like this are an opportunity to think about bigger transformations.”

Still, aid workers warn that the sector’s future is anything but secure. “It’s easier to destroy a house than to rebuild it,” many told us. They fear that qualified workers will leave the field, that aid organisations will disappear, and that public opinions will grow used to this new paradigm.

Donald Trump is accelerating a broader erosion of Western support for humanitarian aid that predates his second term. Its causes are complex: the war in Ukraine, post-pandemic austerity, and donor fatigue in the face of endless crises.

Edited by Virginie Mangin/sj/sb

International Geneva is a unique world. Sign up to our newsletter for the perfect guide.