There has been widespread panic across the African continent as the UK cuts foreign aid by £5 billion. In its landmark decision, the UK government unveiled its decision to slash its foreign aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.3%, a move that amounts to an estimated £5 billion reduction in overseas development assistance. The decision, driven in part by growing pressure from allies like the United States to ramp up defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, marks one of the most significant retractions of British soft power in modern history. For African countries, many of whom rely on predictable aid inflows for healthcare, education, water, and climate resilience, the implications are enormous.
The planned cut reduces the UK’s aid envelope from around £14.1 billion in 2024 to £9.2 billion by 2027. Real-term reductions are already being felt across multilateral programs. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, will now receive £1.25 billion from the UK over five years, a sharp decline from the previous £1.65 billion commitment, which itself was touted as insufficient by global health experts. Health-focused bilateral aid, once considered a hallmark of UK international development efforts, will be nearly halved, from £974 million in 2024 to £527 million over the next three years.
Africa stands at the epicentre of this seismic shift. Countries such as Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, and Mozambique are already grappling with public health emergencies, fragile education systems, and limited fiscal space. Many of them had aligned their development plans with the assumption of continued donor support. The sudden withdrawal of predictable UK funding undermines not only ongoing projects but also national budgeting and planning processes.
What Sectors Would Be Most Impacted As UK Cuts Foreign Aid?
One of the most visible impacts is in the health sector. Gavi, which has helped immunize over one billion children globally, warned that the UK’s reduced funding could result in at least 400,000 children across sub-Saharan Africa missing life-saving vaccines. Already, the World Health Organization has flagged a resurgence in vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, polio, and yellow fever in regions where immunisation campaigns have stalled. Dr. Sandy Douglas, a vaccinologist at Oxford University, described the development as “hugely disappointing,” warning that “many thousands of children who could have lived will instead die.”
This funding shock also threatens progress in combating HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. With significant contributions to the Global Fund also under review, the UK’s pullback may leave millions of Africans without access to HIV testing kits, antiretroviral drugs, or TB diagnostics. In South Africa, which depends on a combination of UK and US funding to finance its national HIV response, the stakes are high. The potential rollback of these programs could reverse two decades of gains in controlling HIV prevalence and expanding treatment access.
Education is another critical area facing upheaval. The UK has historically championed girls’ education in fragile and conflict-affected states. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and Sierra Leone, UK-backed programs currently support over 170,000 children, most of them girls, with access to quality learning in safe environments. With the budget reductions, many of these initiatives risk being wound down, and communities that have slowly rebuilt from war and displacement may again find themselves locked out of global educational progress. Save the Children’s Director of UK Impact, Dan Paskins, criticized the cuts as “a cruel and self-defeating failure of both solidarity and diplomacy,” adding that “it’s children and their futures who will pay the highest price.”
The cuts will also impede efforts to improve water, sanitation, and hygiene infrastructure across the continent. In countries like Mali, Uganda, and Somalia, UK aid has supported the drilling of boreholes, construction of latrines, and delivery of clean water to schools and hospitals. These investments have not only saved lives but helped reduce gender disparities, as girls often bear the burden of fetching water from distant sources. The cessation of funding to these programs raises the specter of rising waterborne diseases, including cholera and dysentery, especially in informal urban settlements and refugee camps.
Why Is There Widespread Retreat From International Aid Spending?
Compounding this crisis is the concurrent retreat of the United States from foreign aid leadership. Under President Donald Trump’s second term, USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, was effectively dismantled by July 2025, with 83% of its programs halted and nearly 90% of its funding cut. The decision triggered widespread alarm. In one of his rare candid moments on the issue, Trump referred to the move as “devastating,” though he quickly deflected responsibility, calling on other countries to “chip in and spend money too.” Critics, however, point to Trump’s longstanding scepticism of foreign aid. During his campaign and presidency, he repeatedly argued that “the U.S. pays too much in foreign aid,” urging a reorientation toward domestic priorities.
The ripple effects of this double-barreled withdrawal from both the UK and US are deeply felt across African capitals. In Ethiopia, the Ministry of Health had counted on foreign donors to sustain maternal health clinics and procure contraceptives. Without UK and US backing, officials say maternal mortality may spike. In Kenya, the Ministry of Education has shelved plans to roll out digital learning kits to rural schools due to funding shortfalls. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, nutrition programs that treat child stunting in conflict-affected regions are hanging by a thread.
Across the board, African governments are now faced with a difficult choice: either scramble to plug the funding gap using domestic resources, or watch hard-won gains in public health, education, and infrastructure begin to unravel. For many countries still recovering from the economic aftershocks of the COVID-19 pandemic and struggling with mounting debt burdens, neither option offers an easy path.
These developments have drawn concern even within the UK itself. Former International Development Minister Anneliese Dodds criticized the government for abandoning its leadership role in global health and undermining its credibility on the world stage. She warned that the cuts could jeopardize the UK’s position in multilateral forums, including regional development banks and the Global Partnership for Education. Her resignation in February 2025 came amid mounting criticism that Britain was turning inward at a time when global cooperation was more urgent than ever.
The long-term consequences for African economies could be significant. Beyond the immediate humanitarian fallout, there is a risk of rising instability. When health systems fail and education grinds to a halt, it opens the door to unrest, radicalization, and migration. Moreover, the vacuum left by Western donors is already being filled by geopolitical rivals. China, for instance, is expanding its footprint across the continent, offering tariff-free trade access, infrastructure loans, and development assistance, albeit often tied to strategic or resource-based interests.
Civil society groups and non-governmental organisations have stepped into the breach where possible, but even their capacity is strained. Major charities like Oxfam, Plan International, and WaterAid have launched emergency appeals to fill funding gaps but acknowledge that donor fatigue and global economic slowdown make sustained support difficult.
What Needs To Be Done?
In the face of these challenges, some African leaders are calling for a paradigm shift, away from aid dependency and toward trade, investment, and self-financing. While that vision is laudable, the abruptness of the UK and US aid cuts leaves little room for a graceful transition. Development experts argue that such a pivot requires years of careful planning, capacity-building, and economic diversification. To pull the rug now, they say, is tantamount to abandoning the world’s most vulnerable at a critical juncture.
As the UK redirects its resources toward military expansion, and the US dismantles its most important aid institution, millions in Africa are left to face an uncertain future. The world watches as decisions made in London and Washington reverberate across villages and cities in Nairobi, Lagos, Kinshasa, and Maputo, places where a few thousand pounds or dollars can mean the difference between life and death, between a future of promise and a cycle of poverty.
Unless a coordinated global response is mounted, bringing together remaining donors, multilateral institutions, and African governments, the setbacks triggered by these aid cuts could echo for generations. The Sustainable Development Goals, already off track in many countries, may become increasingly out of reach. For now, it is African children, mothers, and communities who are paying the highest price for decisions made far away, behind closed doors, in the name of fiscal rebalancing and national security.
ALSO READ: Rwanda Releases Statement Following DRC’s Military Build-Up In North Kivu
