According to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, 83% of programs run by USAID will be cancelled.
The cancellation of the 5200 contract follows Elon Musk's participation in Government Efficiency (DOGE) following a six-week rapid review of US aid spending managed by President Donald Trump.
“After six weeks of review, we have officially cancelled 83% of USAID's programs. The currently cancelled 5,200 contracts spent hundreds of billions of dollars in ways that are (and sometimes unharmed) in the US's central national interest,” Rubio tweeted.
Rubio argued that the remaining program of about 1,000 people should be managed “more effectively” under his State Department “in consultation with Congress.” Rubio thanked the “Doge and the hardworking staff” for being called “over-historical reform.”
Last month, thousands of USAID staff were placed on administrative leave, and those working on overseas programs have been told to prepare to return to the US.
Impact on Africa
Africa, which has long received a major trend in US development aid, could be heavily affected by the turbulence of USAID.
Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for US$12 billion in USAID's 2024 spending obligations, citing the US Department of State, data from Semafor. The five largest expected recipients were listed as Dr. Congo ($1.3 billion), Ethiopia ($1.2 billion), Sudan ($770 million), Nigeria ($760 million), and South Sudan ($730 million).
The February analysis examined the impact of the extension of the subsidies at the time for one year. Ian Mitchell and Sam Hughes of the Global Development Center calculated that eight of the 26 poorest countries in the world had one-fifth of the USAID.
Everything except South Sudan, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Sudan, Uganda and Ethiopia are located in Africa. Another biggest recipient is Afghanistan.
“Because the economy of these eight low-income countries is so small, aid accounts for an average of 11% of total revenue (based on GNI data available in seven countries). With USAID providing 30% of its support, freezes could create a shortfall equivalent to more than 3% of GNI.
In all but these two countries, the USAID focus is classified as “emergency response,” some suggest that aid is being used to address acute needs due to prolonged crisis.
Reduce spark discussion
Michael Scherkin, director of the 14N Strategy Global Programme and an associate fellow at RUSI, based in the UK, said it is difficult to summarise the enormous nature of the reduction, despite its focus on West Africa, France and Europe and predicting limited political influence in the US.
“The programming in USAID is so large and so diverse it is almost impossible to understand the immeasurable effects of these cuts. However, when most Americans shrug and say, 'Good job!', it's rarely seen, or seen, with little or no negative impact. ”
Among those who denounced the decision was Michael McFauul, a former US ambassador to Russia who serves as director of Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute. McFaul calls the series of cuts “a giant mistake.”
“We needed to reform the USAID, not dismantle. China has not finished. Foreign support programs. In an age of great power competition, the Trump administration is unilaterally destroying one of our best tools with the influence of soft power.”
An African civil society leader who wrote in African Business prior to the cut confirmation said the freeze in USAID funding has resulted in an uptick in health care, nutrition, child protection services, education and increased gender-based violence in African families.
