Breaking news:USAID to African countries halted to better us economy against:see More

The decision to halt USAID to African countries, particularly under the Trump administration’s executive order on January 20, 2025, was framed as part of an “America First” policy to prioritize U.S. economic interests and address domestic budgetary pressures. The rationale, as articulated by figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Trump, centers on reducing federal spending, cutting programs perceived as misaligned with U.S. foreign policy, and addressing concerns about aid dependency, corruption, and inefficiency. Proponents argue that redirecting funds could bolster the U.S. economy by reducing the $40 billion annual foreign aid budget (of which USAID administers the majority) and focusing on domestic needs, especially amid economic challenges like inflation or debt. Elon Musk, involved in government efficiency efforts, has called USAID a wasteful agency, claiming its closure could save billions. Some perspectives, like those from the Hudson Institute, suggest that shifting from aid to trade-focused partnerships could foster mutual economic growth, citing examples like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which supports tariff-free African exports to the U.S.

However, critics argue this move could harm both African and U.S. interests. USAID’s $12.1 billion to sub-Saharan Africa in 2023 supported health (e.g., PEPFAR for HIV/AIDS), food security, and economic development, saving millions of lives and fostering stability. Cuts could push 5.7 million more Africans into extreme poverty, disrupt health systems, and exacerbate crises like famine in Sudan, where USAID funded over 1000 communal kitchens. Economically, the U.S. benefits from African stability and growth—Africa hosts 11 of the world’s 20 fastest-growing economies, and USAID programs have facilitated $86 billion in private-sector deals and electrified 180 million people, creating markets for U.S. firms. Geopolitically, slashing aid risks ceding influence to China and Russia, who are expanding economic and military ties in Africa. Critics also note that foreign aid is less than 1% of U.S.

GDP, suggesting minimal domestic economic gain compared to the global fallout.

The counterargument is that aid hasn’t always translated into sustainable development, with issues like mismanagement or elite capture in recipient countries.

Some African voices, like those in Foreign Policy and Al Jazeera, see the freeze as a chance to rethink dependency, urging African nations to prioritize domestic revenue, trade, and local institutions.

Ghana’s “Beyond Aid” vision and Botswana’s diamond-driven growth are cited as models.

Yet, the abrupt nature of the cuts—halting 83% of aid contracts—has paralyzed critical programs, with waivers for life-saving aid (e.g., in DR Congo, South Sudan) proving hard to implement.

In short, while halting USAID might free up funds for the U.S., the economic benefits are uncertain and likely outweighed by risks to African stability, U.S. geopolitical influence, and long-term trade opportunities. African nations could use this as a catalyst for self-reliance, but the immediate human and economic toll is significant.

impact on African economies

China’s role in Africa