The decision by the Trump administration, led by Elon Musk, has hit the humanitarian and development aid sector like a bolt from the blue. After a 90-day freeze on all programmes, almost all the employees of USAID and its agencies (BHA, BPRM) were immediately dismissed.
Then, on the night of 26-27 February, humanitarian actors received letters suddenly cutting off funding in countries where emergency relief is vital, such as Sudan, Syria, Niger, Yemen and Mozambique.
What is striking is the suddenness and brutality of the decision, and we can only be pessimistic for the future when we learn that more than 10,000 programmes have been sacrificed, along with 92% of USAID’s budget, according to indications yet to be confirmed.
It’s an earthquake, a tidal wave, a tsunami, a cataclysm, unprecedented because budgets have only been increasing for over 35 years, even though the curve of resources was falling compared with that of needs, according to a scissor effect that we analysed here recently.
The fall will be all the harder when we know that in 2023, while global Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached USD 223 billion, the contribution of the United States, the largest contributor, represented USD 64.7 billion, including USD 14.5 billion in humanitarian assistance. Without knowing what will happen to the State Department’s budget in this area, we can measure the haemorrhaging of aid when observers indicate that American aid represents 42% of international aid.
The humanitarian consequences are immediate when, depending on the organisation, American funding sometimes represents between 20% and 50% of its budget! One NGO has had to suspend immediately a drinking water supply programme for 650,000 displaced persons in Darfur, while another organisation has had to stop its programme of 850,000 medical consultations in Afghanistan.
There is no doubt that this decision by the Trump administration will lead to a deterioration in survival conditions and ultimately to an increase in mortality among vulnerable populations, as well as a great deal of despair when aid is cut off so abruptly without even having had time to organise to limit the shock. We need to be able to assess the terrible human consequences this will have, without forgetting the responsibility of the States and the protagonists of the conflicts towards their populations.
Frankly, whatever the reasons for the Trump administration’s decision, it is not responsible to put the lives of so many human beings and the partner organisations that help them at risk in this way. What is the value of the word and credibility of a country that behaves like this with regard to humanitarian and development aid? We are talking here about saving lives and escaping from extreme poverty. This is neither a luxury nor an action contrary to the defence or promotion of the United States, which is no longer recognised in this decision!
A humanitarian tsunami.
We need to understand and act quickly. We are facing a drastic reduction in humanitarian and development aid from the United States, but also from other countries that are now cutting back on Official Development Assistance and humanitarian aid, despite some rare counter-examples.
Germany, for example, has already announced a drastic 53% cut in its humanitarian aid by 2025, from an initial level of €2.77 billion. Similarly, France, which had planned a budget of one billion euros in 2025, will only be spending half that amount, while at the same time its Official Development Assistance will lose more than 2 billion euros this year.
The case of the UK is emblematic of this serious and lasting trend. This country set an example by devoting 0.7% of its GDP to ODA until the end of the 2010s. Back in 2020, Boris Johnson, then Conservative Prime Minister, reduced ODA from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross domestic product (GDP). It is now set to fall to 0.3%. ‘I’m not happy about this announcement’, said the new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
At the same time, the UK’s defence budget will rise from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5% from 2027, and should rise to 3% by 2030. As a result, the British defence budget, which stood at 77 billion euros in 2024, will increase by 16.1 billion euros each year from 2027 to meet the risk of war in Europe.
The shock for the humanitarian sector is massive and violent. Apart from the NGOs that have most of their funds from public generosity and have the necessary cash flow, for the majority of NGOs this means the closure of programmes and country missions, as well as redundancies in the field and at headquarters of between 20% and 50% of staff.
This process has already begun among NGOs and will continue, especially as it is still difficult to assess the indirect consequences, such as the interruption of American funding to United Nations agencies that call on international and national NGOs. There is even talk of the United States withdrawing from various multilateral organisations, and Elon Musk has even gone so far as to support an exit from the UN!
In this edition, we publish two articles to mark World Water Day on 22 March. Access to drinking water and sanitation, and water for agriculture, are vital needs for populations. What will become of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030, including Goal 6 for water, in this context?
What are the alternatives for humanitarian actors?
While the effects are global, they will be felt in different ways depending on the level of partnership with USAID, BHA, BPRM and the business model of each NGO.
Faced with a drastic reduction in funding for humanitarian and development aid, the consequences are massive, rapid and lasting. The priority is to safeguard, as far as possible, both aid to populations and the operational core of relief organisations.
In this context, we will have to rely as much on our own strengths and re-mobilise the internal potential of each organisation and its supporters, as we will have to optimise the pooling of resources to save money and build alliances with other organisations and with countries and public or private institutions that will remain mobilised for humanitarian security.
For the time being, we are faced with two contradictory injunctions. We need to reduce the number of organisations while preserving their operational core as a driving force for action and recovery. Each organisation will have to provide a time-calibrated response. The NGO coordinations will put forward an adapted and convincing global plea that goes beyond the usual language.
Here is a summary of the areas of effort identified, which each organisation will optimise:
Mobilisation of all internal resources, governance, head office, field.
Optimising the pooling of purchasing and operational innovation in aid.
Mobilising individual donors, corporate partners, foundations and local authorities.
Optimising partnerships with institutional partners in France and other EU member states, other countries and the UN.
Prospecting and developing other partners such as non-European OECD member countries (Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.) and the Gulf States.
More concretely, solutions such as the State Guaranteed Loan (SGL) should be explored as a response to the security and redeployment of humanitarian NGOs.
In France, the Groupe de Concertation Humanitaire (GCH), which brings together humanitarian NGOs and Coordination Sud with the Centre de Crise et de Soutien (CDCS) of the Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, will be a major vector for mobilisation and a relay with Europe and the United Nations. This work has already begun.
The European level is essential, both for DG ECHO’s 2025 budget, whose Emergency Aid Reserve (EAR) could be significantly increased. The Multiannual Financial Framework (2028-2025) of the new European Commission will be the litmus test of the political will to strengthen humanitarian security at a time when the United States is pulling out.
This is where VOICE, the umbrella organisation for European humanitarian NGOs, will have a major role to play in promoting appropriate proposals to the European Commission this year. This action will be more effective if it is coordinated with governments, NGOs, the Red Cross family and United Nations agencies. With this in mind, VOICE ‘calls on the European Union to take the lead in a global strategic dialogue to develop a new humanitarian system’.
Against a backdrop of national debt, balance of payments deficits, political and social instability, uncertainty about identity and the future, the abandonment of the United States and a reduction in ODA, humanitarian actors must also fundamentally review their communications and advocacy, which are already outdated.
Aid will be questioned, challenged and called into question both politically and in relation to other priorities. What is a priority, what is not, what has become superfluous? What is the humanitarian raison d’être and what is its real added value? Why is it necessary, if not essential? What do we do with the money? How do we convince people now? As a friend said to me, how do you convince a voter in Wisconsin or the Massif Central to help Ukraine, Haiti, Myanmar or Sudan?
A geopolitical tsunami.
Over and above the essential question of funding, humanitarians are going to have to live with and adapt to a major geopolitical upheaval. Donald Trump is turning the tables on international relations and putting an end to two of the European Union’s fundamental pillars – the transatlantic link (NATO), multilateralism and international law. We are returning to the balance of power, with old empires reawakening.
This began with Russia’s war in Ukraine, which opens the door to other possible conflicts in Europe itself. But it is also the path taken by China when it threatens Taiwan and wants to occupy all the space in the China Sea and the straits, the path taken by Turkey in the eastern Mediterranean and now in Syria, the path taken by Azerbaijan against Armenia, the path taken by Rwanda and the M23 in the DRC. The law of the strongest. Others will follow!
The vote on 24 February at the United Nations on support for Ukraine and its territorial integrity gives an idea of the upheavals underway when the United States votes against with Russia and the number of votes against and abstentions increases considerably compared with the previous vote on 2 March 2022.
The rapprochement between the United States and Russia is a return to the condominium of the Cold War, leaving Europe surprised and in danger. In view of the risk to freedom, independence and sovereignty posed by a possible war in Europe, beyond Ukraine, a rapid and massive increase in Europe’s defence budgets will be essential in the long term. The European Union is going to have to review its fundamentals if it is to face up to the new world that is asserting itself with force. It will have to rely on its roots, its historical realities and its peoples if it is to exist and be strong, because there is a great risk that it will be dismantled and/or subservient.
Conclusion.
The humanitarian sector is caught up in a larger, more powerful whole which sets its own pace and priorities. How will the humanitarian sector survive and renew itself in this tsunami? This is the existential question facing the sector today.
Its raison d’être, which is to save lives, is still its mission in the face of wars, disasters and epidemics. The development of fragile countries is still the best response to people’s basic needs. And our experience teaches us that failure to do so will generate instability one step at a time, according to the theory of the butterfly effect or the domino effect, which creates chaos and human suffering.
Alain Boinet.
Alain Boinet is President of the association Défis Humanitaires, which publishes the online magazine www.defishumanitaires.com. He is the founder of the humanitarian association Solidarités International, of which he was Managing Director for 35 years. He is also a member of the Groupe de Concertation Humanitaire at the Centre de Crise et de Soutien of the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs, and of the Board of Directors of Solidarités International, the Partenariat Français pour l’Eau (PFE), the Véolia Foundation and the Think Tank (re)sources. He continues to travel to the field (Northeast Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh and Armenia) and to speak out in the media.
I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :
You must be logged in to post a comment.