The UK’s aid cuts have consequences for our security
IIt was a year when aid was cut; Major cuts in development funding from the US, Germany, France and the UK mark the biggest contraction in aid spending in decades. Aid spending by the world’s biggest donors will fall by $67bn (£50bn), according to some estimates from 2023 to 2026a drop of almost a third.
This is primarily due to the Donald Trump administration shutting down the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and canceling 80 percent of foreign aid programs. His sudden and chaotic decision to cut USAID was coupled with an increasingly apathetic, even hostile approach to multilateral cooperation generally – skipping G20 meetings and using the language of the Sustainable Development Goals (global goals set by the UN to address poverty) “adverse” to American interests.
Disruptions and disruptions of this scale will have human consequences. According to some estimates, 100,000 deaths so farand potentially millions of people in the future. But as my colleague Jerome Puri and I outline in the report “Rethinking UK aid policy in an age of global funding cuts” It will also have security and geopolitical implications that we should not ignore.
International organizations (especially UN agencies) to which most aid spending is directed work on global issues that also affect the UK’s security. This includes infectious disease control, pandemic monitoring and preparedness, and biosecurity.
An analysis of studies by 108 country offices of the World Health Organization (WHO) through March-April 2025 found that 70 percent reported disruptions since the beginning of 2025, particularly linked to aid cuts to the systems needed to monitor, prepare for and respond to preventable disease outbreaks. Analysis by Germany’s Kiel Institute found there is evidence of significant returns for aid donors investing in health in poor countries, particularly in controlling and managing infectious diseases that, if left unmanaged, could lead to larger crises. Preventing pandemics is more cost-effective than responding to them.
The UK government cut Britain’s aid budget earlier this year not for ideological reasons from the Trump administration but because it wanted to find tactical cuts that would provide more funding for defence. The Parliament’s Defense Select Committee rightly said that it was critical and urgent for the UK to develop a war readiness to defend itself. But one of the biggest risks to the UK’s security over the last five years was the Covid-19 pandemic, which means structures to control and address risks to global health are also critical to our security.
The government is trying to maintain some of its contributions to major global health funds even as it cuts spending. But it has still cut funding for some initiatives, including those focused on critical but less-regarded issues such as tackling antimicrobial resistance, and will be affected by broader reductions in resources at international health agencies.
This year’s aid spending cuts are likely to particularly affect countries most affected by conflict; Recent trends in spending suggest that remaining aid may be directed to more stable countries where impact is easier to measure or reserved for short-term emergency interventions.
Countries such as Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan and Palestine have already been affected by UK cuts to direct spending in certain countries. The hard work of preventing conflict in the first place, or trying to reduce the likelihood of conflict spiraling out of control into wider regional wars, is also likely to fall short of broader cuts. Uncontrolled conflict creates fertile ground for illicit finance, organized crime and refugee flows. Many refugees fleeing conflict head to more stable neighboring countries; many of these (Kenya, Bangladesh, and Jordan, for example) have been hosting large refugee camps for years. Reduced UN capacity and funding will make it harder for these countries to cope with these situations; Without sufficient international support, these governments may face domestic pressure to restrict rights or push back refugees, which could also affect regional security.
Aid and defense spending are often described as opposed to “soft” and “hard” instruments of power, but it may be better to view investments in global public goods, such as health security or climate action, not as soft power but as practical, direct investments in collective security.
Ensuring that some resources are focused on neglected conflicts also has broader benefits in preventing conflicts spiraling out of control, which could have long-term effects on regional stability and irregular migration.
This government has few easy options and critical calls on Britain’s resources. The era of comprehensive development expenditures and targets for multilateral cooperation is probably over, and the renewed threat to European security is real. But the scale of recent global aid cuts means the UK needs a clearer plan for how to deal with the significant weakening and restructuring of international organisations, even if it cannot spend more.
Aid cuts of this scale risk leading to uncoordinated reductions in staff and jobs, and competition among international organizations for diminishing resources. This will exacerbate long-standing problems; It is widely acknowledged that there is a lot of duplication and inefficiency in the UN system, and the current aid crisis is the right time to try to address this issue.
The UK has the opportunity to work with others to find a more strategic response, including the proposed global aid and development conference and hosting the G20 in 2027; This will follow what is likely to be a difficult and turbulent year for the United States as host of the grouping. The challenge now is whether the UK can work with others to think strategically about restructuring global cooperation, or whether it can simply be forced to react to the security consequences of its decline.
Olivia O’Sullivan is director of Chatham House’s World in the UK program
This article was produced as part of The Independent. Rethinking Global Aid project
