83% of USAID programmes will be cancelled, says Rubio

83% of programmes run by USAID will be cancelled, according to US secretary of state Marco Rubio, in what is likely to represent a major reduction in US development assistance to Africa.  

The cancellation of 5200 contracts follows a rapid six week review into US aid spending by the administration of President Donald Trump with the participation of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been tasked with rooting out perceived wasteful government expenditure.  

“After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID. The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States,” Rubio tweeted.

Rubio claimed that the remaining programmes, numbering around 1000, are to be administered “more effectively” under his State Department “in consultation with Congress.” Rubio thanked “DOGE and our hardworking staff” for what he dubbed “overdue and historic reform.”

In the last month, thousands of USAID staff have been placed on administrative leave while those working on overseas programmes have been told to prepare to return to the US.

Impact on Africa

Africa, which has long been a recipient of major flows of US development aid, is likely to be heavily impacted by the gutting of USAID. 

According to data from Semafor, citing the US State Department, sub-Saharan Africa accounted for $12bn of USAID’s 2024 spending obligations; the five largest expected recipients were listed as DR Congo ($1.3bn), Ethiopia ($1.2bn), Sudan ($770m), Nigeria ($760m) and South Sudan ($730m).

In a February analysis, which looked at the impact if the then-temporary freeze on aid were extended for a year, Ian Mitchell and Sam Hughes at the Center for Global Development calculated that of the 26 poorest countries in the world, eight receive over a fifth of their assistance from USAID. 

All but one of the eight – South Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Sudan, Uganda, and Ethiopia –  are in Africa. The other largest recipient is Afghanistan.  

“The economies of these eight low-income countries are so small that aid makes up an average of 11% of their total income (based on available GNI data for seven countries). With USAID providing 30% of that support, the freeze could create a shortfall equivalent to over 3% of GNI – a potentially major economic shock for countries that are home to 410 million people.”

In all but two of these countries, USAID’s focus is categorised as “emergency response,” some for protracted crises, suggesting that aid is being used to address acute needs, the authors write. 

Cuts spark debate 

Michael Shurkin, director of global programs at 14N Strategies and an associate fellow at the UK-based RUSI with a focus on West Africa, France, and Europe, said that it would be hard to sum up the enormity of the cuts, although he predicted a limited political impact in the US.  

“USAID’s programming is so massive and so diverse that it’s almost impossible to understand the immense ramifications of these cuts. But little if any negative effects are or will be visible to most Americans, who will shrug their shoulders and say, “good job!””

Among those decrying the decision was Michael McFaul, a former US ambassador to Russia who serves as director of the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University. McFaul called the series of cuts a “huge mistake”. 

“We needed reform of USAID not dismantlement. China is not ending is foreign assistance programs. In an age of great power competition, the Trump administration is unilaterally destroying one of our best instruments of soft power influence.”

Writing in African Business before the cuts confirmation, African civil society leaders said that the freeze on USAID funding had led to a loss of healthcare, nutrition, child protection services, disruption in education and an increase in gender based violence for African families.