While it is still unclear how long the current freeze on US foreign aid will last, and when and where it might resume, it seems the US, under the second Trump administration, may be ready to abandon its role as a lead aid provider. If so—other countries will need to step up.
Here, we look at which countries will feel the biggest impacts according to the latest data. We put US support in context of countries’ own incomes, and how much support they received from other donor countries.
If USAID funding were paused for a year, the resulting shock would exceed 1 percent of GNI in 23 economies, with eight experiencing a devastating hit of 3 percent or more. Eight low-income countries and eight lower-middle income countries face losing over a fifth of the total foreign assistance they receive.
With USAID freezing funds and repatriating staff, there is an immediate need for other donors—particularly Germany but also Canada, Japan and Sweden—to take the US’s place as lead provider in the most exposed countries. Others, including China, Spain and the UK should bring forward their plans to increase assistance to to prevent lives from being lost and fragile states from further destabilsation.
Should the US fully turn away from the world’s poorest countries, the effect on extremely poor people will be devastating. For governments prepared to commit a modest share of taxpayer revenue to saving lives, averting malnutrition, and maintaining stability, this is a moment to step up. Aid budgets must be reoriented towards the poorest countries—before the cost of inaction becomes irreversible.
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
At the moment of writing, the Trump administration has curbed the work of USAID—the world’s largest development agency—having issued stop-work orders affecting programming around the world and seeking to recall thousands of country-based staff to Washington. Relying on a skeleton staff, it seems unlikely the administration will be able to review and release funds anytime soon. While there’s still time to change course and mitigate some of the worst effects, countries around the world would be wise to act now in response to a less globally engaged United States.
The US not been a generous aid donor relative to its income since the 1960s; but it has always been the largest in absolute terms. Relative to other providers, a major feature of US support is that it has tended to focus on the poorest countries.
How do we assess recipient exposure?
We look at vulnerable low- and lower-middle income aid recipient countries who are exposed to USAID cuts: either because a large share of their total aid comes from USAID (over a fifth), or because they receive a large amount of aid relative to their Gross National Income (GNI). We calculate these metrics for all aid recipient countries here (alongside additional information such as the amount of aid they receive per person) but focus here on the 26 low-income countries (LICs) and 51 lower middle-income countries (LMICs). For each recipient country, we also identify its largest non-US provider of development assistance to indicate who is now best-placed to take a lead role among providers.
There are several other factors that development agencies can and should consider in a more careful analysis. In particular, humanitarian needs may be more pressing; there may providers that do not report to the OECD; and there may be sector impacts, and exemptions, that shape the impact of US’s aid freeze. Still, we hope that this analysis will inform planning.
Which countries are most exposed?
Of the 26 poorest countries in the world, we identify eight where over a fifth of their assistance comes from USAID—specifically, South Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Uganda and Ethiopia. In all but two of these countries USAID’s focus is categorized as “emergency response”—albeit for relatively protracted crises. This suggests aid is being used to address acute needs within these countries. In Liberia, basic health is the main sector while in Uganda it is population and reproductive health.
Source: Center for Global Development
