On January 20, 2025, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting USAID disbursements for 90 days. Speculations around the move suggested that Africa may be the worst hit.
- US President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting USAID disbursements for 90 days.
- African countries like South Sudan, DR Congo, and Somalia were expected to be the most affected due to severe humanitarian crises.
- Reports suggested that USAID funds were misused.
Countries such as South Sudan, DR Congo, and Somalia, which are already dealing with severe humanitarian crises, including famine and displacement, quickly became regions of concern.
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), almost 282 million people in Africa (20% of the population) were undernourished in 2022, up 57 million from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Approximately 868 million people were affected by moderate to severe food insecurity, with more than one-third (342 million) suffering from extreme hunger.
Data such as this, highlight why experts believed that the halt in USAID would be detrimental to Africa at large.
However, an expert opinion from Caitlin Burton, Senior vice president of Zipline, may suggest otherwise.
Effects of USAID cuts in Africa so far
As initially projected, a cut in US funding to Africa was set to have some far-reaching consequences.
Following the funding cut, several Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working in sectors such as health, agriculture, and education, across Africa were shut down.
A report weeks after Trump’s decision showed that Uganda was facing a 300 billion shillings ($82 million) funding deficit in its HIV relief programs.
US funding contributed $417 million to Uganda’s health sector in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024, assisting in the treatment of 1.2 million patients.
Also around the same time, the Nigerian government announced plans to take over the welfare of 28,000 staff laid off due to the Trump administration’s suspension of funding to USAID.
While these events suggested that the USAID cut was sinking its teeth deep into the very fabric of important sectors across Africa, other reports suggested that Africa did not miss the funds.
In February, elders from Nigeria’s northeast region called for USAID and other foreign donor organizations to leave the region following allegations of terrorism financing.
The requests came after reports alleged that USAID and other organizations were sponsoring terrorism by supplying lethal groups such as ISIS and Boko Haram, who have tormented the region for years.
Additionally, lawmakers in Nigeria raised concerns about transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of more than a dozen non-profit organizations in implementing development programs funded by foreign donors.
Later that month, still in Nigeria, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), a Nigerian regulatory agency discovered USAID-funded medications and other expired drugs during a raid in Lagos State, Nigeria’s commercial hub.
The agency seized 87 truckloads of banned, expired, and substandard medicinal products, including USAID- and UNFPA-donated antiretroviral drugs, and male and female condoms, among others.
This indicated that aid materials had been improperly stored or deliberately resold, defeating the entire purpose of disbursing aid.
This point was also highlighted by Caitlin Burton, during an exclusive with Business Insider Africa when she stated that Africa was receiving less aid than had been allocated, pointing partly to the bureaucracies that hamper the delivery of aid materials.
“US-supported programs, they often cost 2 or 3 times or even 10 times what they should have cost to deliver just to feed the cottage industry of aid contractors around D.C, so the amount Africa is losing in terms of material support is actually lower than the dollar figure,” she said.
The top African recipients of U.S. aid in 2023, according to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Office, were Ethiopia ($1.75B), Egypt ($1.45B), Somalia ($1.2B), Nigeria ($1.01B), and the DRC ($0.98B).
The path forward for Africa outside of USAID
For decades, the importance of US Funding in Africa’s development had been overinflated, as billions of dollars were reported to have been channeled into Africa’s health, agriculture, and humanitarian areas. However, the figure may not be as great as many Africans assume.
Caitlin Burton contends that USAID’s projects frequently lack true efficacy.
“I think many of the programs weren’t actually that effective, so what Africa is losing in terms of potential impact is also not as significant as it appears on paper,” she stated
“With a fraction of what was being spent by the U.S. government previously, you could keep nutrition products, HIV, and malaria medicine flowing into humanitarian settings, and I think everywhere else we should be focusing on the road to actual long-term sustainable development,” she added.
Serving as a Senior Vice President at Zipline, the world’s largest autonomous instant logistics and delivery system, she noted that with the cut of US funding, she has noticed smoother transitions of medical materials in the supply chain as opposed to the clunky movement with the former system.
“Zipline is in five countries and we can see how some certain countries are moving commodities that would have gone through a separate system into our supply chain and they are just keeping products flowing to patients and there is not a big disruption,” she said.
“You’re spending tens of millions of dollars less but you’re still seeing the same product access for patients,” she added.
In conclusion, the suspension of USAID funding to Africa has sparked a debate about the true impact of U.S. aid on the continent.
While the immediate consequences included the shutdown of NGOs and funding gaps in critical sectors, evidence suggests that Africa may not be as dependent on U.S. aid as once believed.
