Tag: budget cuts

Official Development Assistance: Collapse?

Joint interview with Thierry Mauricet and Xavier Boutin, presidents of Coordination Humanitaire et Développement (CHD)

« L’aide publique au développement n’est pas une dépense, c’est un investissement pour la paix et la dignité humaine »

General Assembly 2025 – CHD

Défis Humanitaires: Coordination Humanitaire et Développement (CHD) today plays a key role between emergency and development actors. Can you remind us what it represents and how it fits into the landscape of international solidarity?

Thierry Mauricet: CHD today brings together 59 French NGOs, engaged both in crisis settings and in long-term development programs. Together, that’s 2,675 projects or programs deployed, in more than 120 countries, by 28,099 staff. In 2024, CHD member organizations managed to mobilize €2.1 billion to support millions of people. CHD constitutes a unique space for dialogue between humanitarian and development actors, two worlds which, although complementary, do not always work on the same timelines or with the same tools.

Xavier Boutin: CHD also represents field actors at the heart of Coordination SUD (CSUD), of which we are a full member. This membership gives us a collective voice within the French institutional landscape. With Coordination SUD, we share the same objective: to defend an ambitious policy of international solidarity. CHD is a pillar of this, by carrying the “field” specificities of NGOs that combine emergency, reconstruction and development, and by advocating intensely for public co-financing of NGOs.

Défis Humanitaires: Official development assistance (ODA) grew between 2014 and 2022. What were the drivers?

Thierry / Xavier: Several dynamics converged to explain this progression. Between 2017 and 2022, French ODA rose from 0.43% (i.e., €10.1 billion) to 0.56% of GNI, i.e., €15.2 billion, which enabled France to become the 4th largest donor in the world. This increase was supported by strong advocacy from civil society, notably carried by CHD within Coordination SUD. In 2016, France ranked among the last countries of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), with only 2.8% of its ODA channeled through NGOs, compared to a European average of around 15%[1]. This situation contributed to a realization by the State. However, this trajectory was brutally interrupted in February 2024, when the Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty Bruno Le Maire decided to cut €742 million from the “Official development assistance” mission,

Défis Humanitaires: The budgetary news of recent months has been marked by an unprecedented contraction of ODA. How do you analyze this development?

Thierry Mauricet: Contraction is an understatement. Between 2024 and 2026; if the 2026 Finance Bill (PLF) is adopted as is, the ODA budget appropriations would fall from €5.9 billion to only €2.9 billion. That’s a halving in three years, a historic setback that would bring France back to funding levels comparable to those of the early 2010s.

Xavier Boutin: What is particularly alarming is the impact on the mechanisms that directly support NGOs. In 2023, the budget allocated to AFD project aid, the Civil Society Organizations Initiative (I-OSC), the Humanitarian Emergency Fund (FUH) and Volunteering amounted to €1.3 billion[2]. In 2026, this amount would fall to €497 million, a decrease of more than 60%. It is a brutal strategic reversal, which marks a clear disengagement of the State from civil society. This means fewer resources to respond to the needs of the 350 million people requiring humanitarian aid according to the UN in 2025. This French retreat is part of a global trend, started as early as 2021 in the United Kingdom, then in Germany and in the United States under the Trump administration.

Thierry Mauricet: This reduction is not only budgetary, it is political. It calls into question the role of NGOs in implementing international solidarity, even though they are on the front line in the face of humanitarian, climate and geopolitical crises. CHD warns: it is the funding channeled through NGOs that is hardest hit, even though it is essential to act quickly, effectively and as close as possible to the needs of populations.

Evolution of AFD and humanitarian funding to NGOs 2022–2026

Défis Humanitaires: What concrete consequences do you observe in the field?

Thierry Mauricet: Each budget cut translates into suspended or stopped programs, non-renewed local staff, weakened partners. To visualize the human impact: the decrease observed to date, €2.3 billion, would have made it possible to finance basic vaccination for more than 71 million children, one year of food assistance for 4 million households, schooling support for 17 million children, emergency shelter for 45 million families, or agricultural training for 2 million young people[3]. These cuts hit humanitarian and development programs hard in already fragile countries such as Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Chad, Madagascar or Lebanon where some NGOs have had to pause their activities in health care, food security, water and sanitation, education or agriculture. Entire populations find themselves in uncertainty.

Xavier Boutin: And it is not just a matter of numbers. Behind each suspended project, there are communities that were gradually shedding their dependence on emergency aid. French NGOs have been working for years to promote autonomy, to train young farmers, to strengthen health systems. When funding stops, the entire development chain breaks.

Dr. Fabien Kibukila, from Première Urgence, talks with a community liaison officer in the Zayna displacement camp. 28 November 2023, North Kivu province, DRC. ©PUI

Défis Humanitaires : Yet, ODA has shown impressive results…

Xavier Boutin: Absolutely. ODA has enabled major progress. In twenty years, according to WHO and the Global Fund, more than 70 million lives have been saved thanks to the fight against AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis[4]. UNICEF indicates that the number of out-of-school children at secondary level has decreased by 30%[5]. And beyond the figures, it is about political stability and crisis prevention. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that one dollar invested in prevention yields 103 dollars in economic returns[6]. Few public investments have such a social return.

Thierry Mauricet: These results are proof that ODA works, that it is not a bottomless pit. It saves lives and contributes indirectly or directly to peace, security and human dignity. That is why we say that ODA is not an expense, but a strategy of international responsibility.

Défis Humanitaires: How is French public opinion reacting to this situation?

Thierry Mauricet: The French massively support international solidarity. According to a Harris Interactive survey, two-thirds of our fellow citizens are in favor[7], and this proportion rises to more than 80% among young people[8]. This support is essential: it shows us that French society remains deeply attached to its values of solidarity, beyond political divides.

Xavier Boutin: This is all the more striking since in other countries, such as the United States or the United Kingdom, cuts have often been justified by a supposedly hostile public opinion towards aid. In France, it is the opposite: society is ahead of its leaders. 56% of the French want to maintain or increase ODA according to Focus 2030[9]. This creates a democratic space to make our voice heard.

Défis Humanitaires : What is CHD’s position in the face of this situation?

Thierry Mauricet: We are calling for a floor of co-financing for NGOs to be ring-fenced, for French Humanitarian and Development Organizations (OHD) and civil society organizations in partner countries to be prioritized, and for intermediaries between donors and the field to be limited. The leverage effect of co-financing is powerful because every euro invested in international solidarity attracts others. State funding makes it possible to obtain European, multilateral or private co-financing, multiplying the impact of projects. For example, an agricultural project financed at 20% by the French Development Agency (AFD) can mobilize an additional 80% from other donors[10]. Without that first public euro, nothing would exist.

Xavier Boutin: And beyond the financial effect, there is a political and symbolic effect. When France supports a project in Niger, Cameroon or Haiti, it sends a signal of confidence. It is also a way of asserting a positive French presence, based on cooperation and not on a purely security-driven logic.

Défis Humanitaires : What concrete actions is CHD implementing for its members?

Xavier Boutin: Starting in February 2025, CHD initiated a “Public Affairs” approach in order to strengthen dialogue with parliamentarians and public decision-makers. We meet them regularly to explain, with supporting figures, the impact of ODA, and in particular the role of OHDs, on health, education or food security. Our approach is non-partisan: we remind them that international solidarity is neither right nor left, but that it reflects France’s place and values in the world.

Thierry Mauricet: We act in complementarity and in perfect synergy with Coordination SUD, which carries the voice of all development NGOs. CHD thus proposed and obtained from Coordination SUD to propose an amendment to PLF2026, securing a strict minimum of co-financing for field projects of French NGOs and local CSOs. This minimal effort of €186 million, representing 0.03% of the State budget appropriations and 4.2% of the ODA Mission, would allow NGOs to maintain a minimum of activities and, for some, to survive.

Défis Humanitaires : How do you envision the future, particularly for 2026 and 2027?

Xavier Boutin: The government’s PLF 2026 represents a very serious threat to public co-financing of our humanitarian, development and volunteering projects, and to the very existence of some organizations. The entire CHD governance is strongly mobilized to convince public decision-makers to correct it. Member organizations, although very mobilized on their field issues, are also numerous to mobilize, which is a strong signal sent to the authorities.

After the adoption of the finance law, we will maintain constant dialogue with public decision-makers, to avoid new threats, and continue to make known the high added value of our organizations’ actions.

Thierry Mauricet: In parallel, we have initiated several lines of reflection: reducing ineligible costs (with Donnadieu & Associés), pooling human resources, studying mergers or even fusions between organizations, … Some organizations also seem interested in new forms of cooperation with international donors, for example loans.

Défis Humanitaires: What message would you like to send as the 2026 budget debate opens?

Thierry Mauricet: It is essential to remind that French NGOs play an irreplaceable role in international solidarity. They intervene where institutions cannot always go, with agility, proximity and expertise. They are able to quickly mobilize their expertise, resources, work with local partners, and innovate in complex contexts. In 2023, the mechanisms accessible to them — AFD grant projects, Initiative-OSC, Humanitarian Emergency Fund, crisis reserve, volunteering — amounted to €1.3 billion. In 2026, this amount risks falling to €497 million. This is not a simple decrease: it is a collapse. It is thousands of projects, partnerships, jobs and concrete actions that are threatened. France cannot afford to weaken such a strategic sector, recognized for its effectiveness and legitimacy in the field.

Xavier Boutin: More broadly, it must be recalled that ODA is an investment in global stability. It helps prevent conflicts, strengthen health systems, fight inequalities and support ecological transitions. Development works: the progress made in recent decades in health, education or poverty reduction testifies to this. Breaking this dynamic is to weaken an essential lever of France’s international action. The 2021 Programming and Orientation Law on Solidarity Development and the Fight Against Global Inequalities (LOP-DSLIM), adopted unanimously, carried an ambitious and shared vision. Today, less than a third of its commitments have been realized. It is time to reassert strong political will, commensurate with the stakes and responsibilities of France in the world.

Construction sector in Liberia, 2024. ©IECD

Conclusion
The challenges are immense, but the mobilization remains intact. French NGOs, united within CHD and Coordination SUD, are part of a tradition of international solidarity engaged since the 1970s. This model, modernized over time, works effectively today: it is based on cooperation, local anchoring and innovation. It would be incomprehensible to weaken it at a time when humanitarian and development needs have never been so pressing.
As Thierry sums it up: “It is not a question of means, it is a question of priorities.”
And Xavier adds: “Official development assistance is not an expense; it is an investment in peace, stability and human dignity.”

 

[1]French NGOs facing the globalization of aid, Vincent Pradier,URL : Les ONG françaises face à la globalisation de l’aide

[2] In commitment authorizations

[3] Position paper PLF 2026: Red alert on the budget for international solidarity, Coordination Sud, 10/2025, URL : CSUD_Alerte_rouge_budget_SI_PLF2026_oct2025.pdf

[4] 2025 Annual Results Report of the Global Fund, URL : Rapport sur les résultats du Fonds mondial : 70 millions de vies ont été sauvées, mais les progrès sont menacés – Communiqués de presse – Le Fonds mondial de lutte contre le sida, la tuberculose et le paludisme

[5] Position paper PLF 2026: Red alert on the budget for international solidarity, Coordination Sud.

[6] The Urgency of Conflict Prevention – A Macroeconomic Perspective, IMF Live, 12/20/2024, URL : The Urgency of Conflict Prevention – A Macroeconomic Perspective

[7] International Solidarity Survey: the lucidity of the French, 06/2025,URL : https://www.jean-jaures.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Solid_intern.pdf

[8] Rémy Rioux (AFD): “Young people are more favorable to development aid,” Le Dauphiné, 05/2025, URL : Exclusif. Rémy Rioux (AFD) : « Les jeunes sont plus favorables à l’aide au développement »

[9] A majority of French people in favor of maintaining or increasing official development assistance, Focus 2030, 06/19/2025,URL : Une majorité de Français·es en faveur d’un maintien ou d’une augmentation de l’aide publique au développement

[10] The initiative on integrating scaling-up in donor organizations – AFD, Éric Beugnot, 03/2025, URL : VScaling-at-AFD-fr-FINAL.pd

 

 

https://www.c-hd.org/

 

Thierry Mauricet :

After training at a business school at the Institut Européen des Affaires, in law at the University of Paris X and a professional activity in advertising for 7 years, Thierry Mauricet co-founded the association Première Urgence in June 1992 to assist besieged populations in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 1994 to 2011, he served as the association’s Managing Director.

He is now Managing Director of Première Urgence Internationale, an association resulting from the merger of two French NGOs in April 2011. He is also President of Coordination Humanitaire et Développement, Administrator of Coordination SUD, a member of the National Council for Development and International Solidarity, a member of the Steering Committee of the National Humanitarian Conference of the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, a member of the Strategic Orientation Committee of the Humanitarian Space Forum, and a member of the Advisory Board of the international journal Alternatives Humanitaires.

Première Urgence Internationale aims to provide integrated assistance in the areas of health, food security, nutrition, rehabilitation and construction of infrastructure, access to water, hygiene and sanitation, economic recovery, education and protection, for civilian populations who are victims or endangered by the effects of wars, natural disasters, the consequences of global warming, and economic collapse following an international or national political upheaval. Première Urgence Internationale’s annual budget is €140 million and its 3,500 employees implement 200 projects in 26 countries in favor of more than 6 million vulnerable people.

 

Xavier Boutin, Directeur général et co-fondateur de l’IECD, Président de la CHD

After a master’s degree at the European Business School in Paris, a master’s degree in business law and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, Xavier Boutin began his career in 1978 in international grain trading at Louis Dreyfus. In 1980, he decided to devote himself to teaching philosophy and training young people and, two years later, took over the management of a popular education association. Keen to show solidarity with populations in difficulty, Xavier Boutin co-founded in 1988 the Institut Européen de Coopération et de Développement (IECD), of which he has been the executive director. IECD first responded to requests from civil society actors, in Madagascar in 1989, then in Lebanon and Cameroon. Gradually, the association extended its activities in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Near East, but also in Latin America and Southeast Asia. Today, it operates in 18 countries and supports the implementation of 38 development projects. Over 25 years, IECD has developed recognized expertise in three core areas: technical training and professional integration of young people, support for small businesses and access of vulnerable populations to education and health. Since June 2013, Xavier Boutin has been co-chairing CHD with Thierry Mauricet. Previously, he was a member of the board of Coordination d’Agen and, from 1997 to 2011, treasurer of Coordination Sud. Xavier Boutin also teaches at IRCOM and speaks at numerous conferences on development-related issues.

CALL TO READERS

Défis Humanitaires is launching a collective reflection on the changes in the world that justify the evolution of the magazine and its layout. Thank you for:

Thank you for your commitment and loyalty to Défis Humanitaires.

The Challenge of Humanitarian “Reinvention”

2025, Khiam, Lebanon ©PUI

While a federal appellate court validated on August 13 the budget cuts imposed by the Trump administration on international aid[1], it is worth reflecting on the underlying dynamics of this historical reversal, beyond its immediate—and often devastating—consequences for the most vulnerable populations on the planet.

The humanitarian sector is likely experiencing the most existential crisis in its history, and this observation is no longer really in doubt. Indeed, studies and analyses have multiplied in recent months, attempting to warn and convince, through countless articles, of the foreseeable risks and devastating effects of the budget cuts announced by the main funders of international aid. Among these, the freezing and then elimination of more than 80% of U.S. aid, culminating in the dismantling of USAID[2], represents a true catastrophe for the millions of people who relied on the programs previously supported by the U.S. agency for their survival. A modeling study published in early July by The Lancet estimates that the proposed budget reductions could lead to the deaths of 14 million people, including more than 4.5 million children[3]. “They risk abruptly halting—or even reversing—two decades of progress in the health of vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict,” commented Davide Rasella, co-author of the study and researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health[4]. Other analyses corroborate these projections, estimating, for example, that 2.3 million children suffering from severe acute malnutrition will no longer have access to the treatments necessary for their recovery, in many countries with failing healthcare systems[5].

These figures are staggering when considered against the lessons of history, the ambitions expressed for decades by the international community regarding sustainable development[6], and more broadly, the fundamental basis of what brings us together as a society—the concept of humanity. Beyond the shock experienced by humanitarian actors faced with unfolding tragedies, it is reason itself that seems attacked by the political decisions causing the current crisis.

From economic rationality to political volatility

In response to this crisis, analyses have proliferated to assess not only the impact of these cuts but also to demonstrate their irrationality in view of the amounts involved (and their insignificance in terms of effects on the macro-budgetary balance of the countries concerned), as well as the counterproductive effects they could generate, even with regard to the national interests of the donor states (starting with global public health issues, given the cessation of funding for numerous vertical programs—HIV, malaria, etc.—and support for failing health systems). These findings have been established and known for a long time, and no one seriously disputes today the causal links showing that international aid is an element of global stabilization benefiting all. Nevertheless, acknowledging this does not mean that nothing needed to be changed or radically transformed in the international aid system, starting with the structure and mechanisms of its funding, whose fragility and political dependence are now more exposed than ever in light of the current crisis, even as its positive effects remain evident. Thus, facing such evidence, how can we explain decisions taken by governments, sometimes against what appears to be their own interest or that of their population, and at a relatively modest cost?[7] At first glance, this seems opaque, and perhaps it is because, focused on the system itself—its objectives and impacts—we overlook a crucial factor in understanding current developments: the conditions that allow it to thrive.

2025, Gaza ©PUI

Historical reversal or a new era?

The current crisis gives the impression of a major step backward or a return to almost immemorial gains—a feeling entirely legitimate given the real halt in allocated funding and the threat it poses to the survival of the international aid system. However, it is worth recalling that this system remains relatively “young,” both in terms of international relations and the history of international solidarity more specifically. Indeed, while the United Nations system was established in 1945, as a response to the trauma of World War II, functionally it only truly took off after the Cold War in the 1990s, during a very particular historical period. The concept of “humanitarianism,” at least in its modern form, had responded to other “forms” before being structured and defined within its current scope. Each of these historical incarnations developed under specific conditions, linked to particular ideas about society and governance, both from governments and their populations. From the creation of the Red Cross when war became industrialized, producing unprecedented casualties, to the invention of “borderless” humanitarianism during the paralysis of the international system due to bloc opposition, the era and environment always shape how the act of “saving lives” is conceived and structured. The contemporary period, now ending, is no exception.

Complementary narratives now obsolete

From a certain perspective, the past twenty-five to thirty years represent a kind of “golden age” of humanitarianism, as never before in history were so many preventable deaths averted. While never fully covering all identified needs for access to essential services for the most vulnerable populations affected by crises, the progress made by the aid system in identifying needs and organizing an appropriate large-scale response has had a tremendous impact on survival, unmatched by previous mechanisms of human solidarity. Such achievement was only possible because the conditions for such growth were met, combining political will and financial means. The undermining of these conditions is at the root of the crisis observed in recent years—and we must ask why.

2025, ©PUI Syria Rural Damascus Projects, Visit O.ROUTEAU

Looking at the current situation from a broader perspective, we sense a deadlock directly linked to the fact that the narratives supporting the conceptual framework of humanitarianism are made obsolete by evolving realities. This deadlock, and the contradictions it creates for the governments of the main donor countries, explains the profound reversal currently observed.

First, the foundational narrative that has become ineffective relates to the idea of social progress. International solidarity (developmental or humanitarian) has always been anchored, in one way or another, to a sense of moral duty and/or social justice, aligned with the growing prosperity experienced by populations in “developed” countries. Following a continuous period of rising prosperity (the “Trente Glorieuses”), in a world where politics aimed to improve people’s living conditions and meet their material needs, it seemed coherent, even essential, to develop a discourse asserting that the collective ambition should be to eradicate extreme poverty globally and ensure universal access to essential services. In an era of mass consumption and leisure-focused societies, with information technologies making global living conditions visible, persistent famine, malnutrition, or child mortality appeared as glaring inconsistencies detrimental to the civilizational progress promoted by Western societies. Victorious in a unipolar world, the capitalist model was expected to meet citizen aspirations and support minimal development in the least advanced countries while ensuring access to essential services for the most vulnerable worldwide.

But in a “finite” world, where the energy-intensive, consumerist Western growth model is increasingly challenged, and prosperity recedes for large segments of Western populations, political discourse inevitably changes. The narrative of international solidarity struggles to anchor itself. While alternative societal choices are possible, the prevailing discourse increasingly leans toward pessimism and inward-looking thinking. The populist and conservative wave sweeping across the West, with Donald Trump as a prominent figure, acts as a principle-based hostile force toward international solidarity, resistant to rational arguments regarding Northern states’ responsibilities or interests. This complicates efforts by aid actors to fight proposed budget cuts. As governments slash social budgets and public services, cutting development aid reinforces, at low cost, the idea of global effort: “the state must cut here first before taxing its citizens more.” Politically, it avoids controversy over declining living standards at home linked to foreign aid spending. While not the sole reason, the degraded economic context and the end of the myth of infinite prosperity create fertile ground to challenge the concept of humanitarian responsibility. The famous phrase, “France cannot welcome all the misery of the world”[8], resonates today as strongly applied to international solidarity as it did domestically decades ago.

A second powerful narrative supporting donor investment in humanitarian objectives is that of peace. For an extraordinarily long period, the West—and Europe in particular—experienced a relative absence of war on its territories, promoting the civilizational notion of the “end of war.” War, though never entirely gone, was largely a distant phenomenon affecting other regions. This context allowed international law, especially humanitarian law, and related institutions to flourish, offering hope for humanity. The return of war—geographically, e.g., the conflict in Ukraine, and in form, i.e., high-intensity clashes—shatters this utopia. These geopolitical shifts expose inconsistencies and double standards among past “codifiers,” highlighting the selective application of principles. While violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) have always existed, overall coherence was previously maintained by official discourse supporting lawful conflict management. Today’s tragedy in Gaza exceeds the immediate atrocities against Palestinians; it accelerates the deconstruction of the humanitarian space and undermines IHL. Gaza exemplifies this trend, which increasingly challenges aid actors to define a “legitimate humanitarian zone”[9]. Whether in the Sahel, Ukraine, Gaza, Afghanistan, Sudan, Myanmar, Lebanon, or the DRC, this quest grows ever more complex.

Finally, a third narrative mobilized resources from the global North for populations affected by humanitarian crises. This narrative, sometimes called “empathy by kilometers,” suggested that emotional engagement diminished with distance. While partly true, another factor inversely influenced the ability to mobilize resources: as humanitarian crises were once seen as distant and temporary, mobilizing resources in prosperous countries seemed coherent. However, as crises globalize, even affecting wealthy countries, this narrative becomes less effective.

2025, Gaza ©PUI

Reinventing humanitarianism

Beyond the budget cuts themselves, the current battle is also fought in the realm of ideas. The “software” has changed, and we must acknowledge it to rethink tomorrow’s humanitarianism. While the future shape of humanitarian action is uncertain, some paths can be explored. First, before being a system or category of actors, “humanitarianism” is above all a concept structured around principles, regardless of implementers. Determining the most operational actor in Gaza is less important than safeguarding the fundamental principles, particularly in operations by the Humanitarian Foundation for Gaza (GHF). Preserving core capacities is thus a priority. Similarly, whether the current period ends or not, it has fostered expertise that must not be lost, to prevent repeating past mistakes. Advocacy should include preserving humanitarian capacity. At the same time, it is essential to expand operational and inventive capacities to other actors, local or not. Tomorrow’s challenges are immense, and all energies are needed to succeed in reinventing humanitarianism. Finally, since much is ultimately played at the level of underlying ideas, activism and witnessing humanitarian realities must remain ever-present, as humanitarianism has historically arisen from indignation at worldly injustices.

Olivier Routeau

A graduate in law and political science, Olivier completed humanitarian project management training at Bioforce in 2007. He then joined Triangle Génération Humanitaire as Field Coordinator and later Head of Mission in CAR, Lebanon, Congo-Brazzaville, and Tunisia. In 2011, he joined Première Urgence Internationale, initially as Head of the Africa Unit, then leading the Emergency and Operational Development Service from 2015 to 2018. Since 2018, he has served as Director of Operations. He has also collaborated with IRIS since 2014 and became the Pedagogical Manager of the “International Program Manager” training in 2020.

Première Urgence Internationale

[1] United States: Court Upholds Budget Cuts Imposed by the Trump Administration on International Aid

[2] The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), created in 1961 by the Kennedy Administration and responsible for American economic development and humanitarian aid, whose dismantling took effect on February 23, 2025, following a decision by the newly elected Trump Administration.

U.S. Agency for International Development

[3] Evaluating the impact of two decades of USAID interventions and projecting the effects of defunding on mortality up to 2030: a retrospective impact evaluation and forecasting analysis

[4] U.S. cuts to international aid could cause more than 14 million deaths by 2030

[5] Deep dive: Food aid cuts leave behind a trail of hunger and uncertainty | Devex

[6] Sustainable Development Goals

[7] Before the clear cuts in its funding, USAID represented 0.3% of U.S. federal spending. “American citizens contribute about 17 cents per day to USAID, or roughly $64 per year. I think most people would support maintaining USAID funding if they knew how effective such a small contribution could be in saving millions of lives,” said James Macinko, co-author of the study published by The Lancet on the impact of U.S. cuts in early July 2025, and professor at the University of California (UCLA).

U.S. cuts to international aid could cause more than 14 million deaths by 2030

[8] Statement repeatedly made from 1989 by Michel Rocard, then Prime Minister of France, in relation to migration issues.

[9] Ukraine-Gaza: Why the Zone of Legitimate Humanitarian Relevance is Shrinking | Alternatives Humanitaires

[10] For a long time, it was assumed that humanitarian actors worked toward their own disappearance, and once crises were resolved, they would cease to exist as their raison d’être would be eliminated.

[11] Save And Rescue (SAR). Here we refer to sea rescue operations for populations attempting to reach Europe by sea.

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :