HOW aid is used in global politics is both disturbing and predictable. Every few years, whenever a new administration takes office in the Global North, with a stroke of the pen, thousands of organisations risk losing funding and millions of individuals who depend on the survival of these organisations risk losing their lifelines.
This time, the decision has been made by the President of the United States, Donald Trump, who, in what has been described as his second coming, has once again announced the reduction of significant aid. Nevertheless, these decisions are quantitative changes and manifestations of the power and pressure exercised on "vulnerable" populations.
They are about how the world’s most marginalised people, especially in Africa, are still influenced by the political dynamics of the Global North. There are also concerns about how progress for women, grassroots movements and marginalised communities continues to be dependent on the decisions made by foreign powers with no stake in the results.
The long shadow of colonial legacy in global aid
The present international financial assistance system is linked with the colonial economic model, which extracted wealth from Africa for many years. Aid is still presented within this framework.
Some of the international organisations now providing solutions created the problems that aid intended to address. Burdened by debt and economic systems designed for external benefit, post-colonial States were left dependent on foreign capital to sustain critical programmes.
Over time, this evolved into a model where even the most effective African-led initiatives struggle for financial autonomy while funding decisions remain concentrated in Western capitals.
Aid cuts: Political statements with far-reaching consequences
- Letter from America: Is former president Donald Trump a hero or villain?
- Chidzivo, Tarakinyu clinch Kabag honours
- Letter from America: Is former president Donald Trump a hero or villain?
- The Fiddler: Is honesty the best policy?
Keep Reading
When leaders like Trump cut aid, it's not just about reallocating resources — they are making a statement about which struggles are seen as expendable. These decisions signal that the well-being of marginalised communities in the Global South is negotiable, subject to the shifting political winds of the Global North.
At the Alliance for Women and Girls, we see firsthand what these decisions mean. The impact of these cuts is not abstract. USAid, one of the largest funders of health programmes in Africa, has historically supported life-saving treatments for HIV/Aids, malaria and maternal health.
In 2020, the Pepfar programme (President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief), which has been instrumental in combating HIV/Aids across Africa, saw a US$400 million funding reduction under the Trump administration. This placed millions of lives at risk, particularly in countries like Kenya and Uganda, where US aid accounts for a significant portion of healthcare funding.
Similarly, when Trump reinstated the Global Gag Rule in 2017, organisations providing reproductive health services across sub-Saharan Africa were forced to close, cutting off access to contraception and family planning for an estimated 17 million women, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Without these services, rates of unplanned pregnancies and unsafe abortions increased, further exacerbating maternal health crises in already fragile health systems.
The consequences extend beyond health. Proposed aid reductions affected educational programmes. A 2017 Brookings Institution report projected that educational programmes in sub-Saharan Africa could face cuts exceeding US$100 million, limiting access to quality schooling for children in low-income communities. Building on years of trust and impact, local organisations are left in limbo, diverting energy from solving pressing issues to scrambling for survival.
Beyond dependence: Rethinking the funding model
While international aid has been crucial for progress, it has simultaneously entrenched a cycle of dependency by limiting local financial autonomy. We must ask: Why should entire sectors, particularly those addressing gender equity and community empowerment, remain vulnerable to political changes in Washington, London or Brussels? This is not about rejecting aid but rethinking its structure. Given its extractive past, the international community has a historical and moral responsibility to support Africa's development. But support should not mean control and aid should not be a tool of political manoeuvre or an extension of ideological battles in donor countries.
We need flexible long-term financing rather than short-term grants that force organisations to spend most of their time fundraising. Financial resilience is achieved by diversifying funding sources from local philanthropy, social enterprise models and innovative financing that reduces the volatility of aid flows.
When it comes to global philanthropy, we need to shift power dynamics so that African-led organisations have decision-making authority over resources intended to serve their communities.
Empowering African leaders, philanthropists and the private sector to transform funding
While external funding has been a boon to social development, Foreign donors should not be allowed to dictate the direction of Africa’s development. However, philanthropy on the continent must also change. Currently, domestic giving is low, although Africa has some of the fastest-growing economies and several high-net-worth individuals. We need a cultural change in African wealth to solve African problems. The private sector needs to realise that training and supporting grassroots leaders and promoting gender equality is not a charitable act but an investment that will bring about positive change in the future. Businesses must see local organisations as sustainable development partners, not passive aid recipients.
A defining moment for Africa’s future
Trump’s aid cuts remind us that we cannot afford to build our future on "sand". Africa’s progress must never again be at the mercy of politics thousands of miles away.
The traditional aid model is broken. It perpetuates dependence and often drains skills from our countries. We need a new approach where African leaders and our people are at the helm, an approach where long-term sustainable solutions are prioritised over temporary bandages.
Where African solutions are championed and supported by African leaders, philanthropists and the private sector, we must recognise that transformation will not come through weakness or dependence but through strength and self-reliance.
External aid must only supplement our efforts and should never dictate our path forward as a people and continent. The shift is essential and it is crucial that we lead the charge.
