Are the U.S. aid cuts an opportunity for African governments to become more self-reliant? | Experts’ Opinions

It is said that opportunities and innovations arise from significant challenges, and this is why many experts believe that Donald Trump’s decision to cut America’s foreign aid might, in fact, benefit African leaders. The significant reductions to U.S. foreign aid, including the termination of USAID’s contracts, which amount to around $60 billion, have significantly affected African nations, especially countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Liberia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda, which relied the most on U.S. assistance. Although these cuts could threaten essential programs and the lives of millions of people, some say this represents a starting point and a chance for governments and local organizations to be more self-reliant. Read more on this topic, and also how the restructuring of USAID will impact the effectiveness and independence of U.S. foreign aid, through the eyes of several international development experts.

DevelopmentAid: Could the U.S. aid cuts serve as a wake-up call for African governments to increase domestic investment in health, education, and infrastructure?

“Immediately after U.S. President Trump made public his order on aid freeze, several pan-African analysts welcomed it, suggesting it would be a motivating factor for local governments to become more responsible. I agree that aid reduction for African nations could serve as a wake-up call and governments will understand that development can be inspired from inside the country, with local resources, rather than being borrowed or imposed from outside. As they say ‘’any aid that makes the beneficiary depend on it must be rejected’’. This means that aid should not be the main financing source for a nation’s development. If a country heavily depends on foreign aid, cutting this will negatively influence development and will require leaders to quickly find another source of local financing to support development and provide social and economic goods to the population. However, for countries that have used foreign aid as a supplementary financing source, its reduction will only strengthen the nation.”

“Similar to the world being shaken by COVID-19, Africa is feeling the effects of Trump’s announcement and the implementation of USAID’s humanitarian aid cuts. But there’s an idiom used for this kind of situation: a man can adapt to anything. This abrupt cut is causing many job losses and reveals Africa’s dependence and weakness in the face of decisions taken somewhere far away. Humanitarian aid did not begin in Africa, but in Europe, and was subsequently ratified by all countries. But before this humanitarian aid saw the light of day, Africa lived by its own means. In other words, even if humanitarian aid disappeared, every African country would still be able to develop resilient approaches. Without outside influence, members of the government will develop local strategies to achieve this, even if it takes time. Africa has been dragged into a system that makes it intellectually lazy to develop strategic objectives that are adaptive to its possibilities. I am convinced that if Africa hadn’t been influenced from outside, it would be more self-sufficient and economically wealthy. The reduction of humanitarian aid will be a lever to awaken consciousness and lead Africa towards sustainable resilience.”

“A transition to more autonomous funding requires effective policies and strong governance to ensure that resources are used optimally. External pressure can indeed bring about positive changes in resource management. Here are a few points to consider:

• Dependence on foreign aid: A reduction in aid could expose the vulnerability of African economies that are heavily dependent on foreign funds. This may prompt governments to look for ways to finance their own programs more autonomously.
• Domestic resource mobilization: This could encourage countries to improve tax collection and invest in initiatives that promote economic growth, thereby reducing their dependence on external aid in the long term.
• Prioritizing investments: In the face of declining aid, it becomes vital for governments to prioritize their spending. This could encourage them to reallocate resources to strategic sectors that promote sustainable development.
• Encouraging accountability: Such a situation could also stimulate greater accountability and transparency in the management of public funds, as governments are pushed to demonstrate the impact of their investments on the well-being of the population.
• Opportunities for collaboration: Reduced aid could encourage African countries to seek partnerships with the private sector, non-governmental organizations or other countries to diversify funding sources.”

“This is possible through the implementation of interdependent cognitive mechanisms, the first link of which would be awareness, which should lead to the stimulation of budgetary sovereignty, which in turn should lead to strategic investments in key sectors. This process should result in concrete actions in the medium to long term. However, uncertainties remain, among others: “Will this reduction be perceived as a wake-up call by those concerned? Will actions be taken, given the various problems and challenges faced by African governments?”

“The recent 2025 decision by the Trump administration to cut $60 billion in U.S. aid, including terminating USAID contracts across several African countries, has ignited intense debate. While critics warn of shattering impacts on health, education, and humanitarian programs in nations like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Uganda, others see a potential silver lining. Reduced foreign aid could push African governments to take greater ownership of their development agendas, encouraging domestic investment and locally driven innovations.”

“On January 20, 2025, the new U.S. President suspended development aid worldwide for 90 days to assess its effectiveness and alignment with US interests. Since then, nearly 85% of funded projects have been canceled outright, leaving thousands of beneficiaries in precarious and vulnerable situations. Despite the devastating effect of this suspension of U.S. development aid, there has been very little response from the national authorities of the beneficiary countries, either to denounce the procedure, which shows little respect for procedures and agreements between nations, or to announce palliative measures to continue the implementation of the interrupted projects to affirm autonomous and endogenous development. Worse still, misinformation has helped to convince public opinion that the aid provided by the U.S. had no impact on the beneficiary populations but rather served to enrich certain workers involved in these projects and could therefore be written off as a loss. The paradox was nevertheless evident at the decentralized level, with local authorities relying heavily on foreign aid to finance local development. Today, apart from humanitarian food aid in conflict zones, where some governments have announced national measures to continue helping the affected populations, measures are still slow to be taken.”

“The reduction in U.S. aid could serve as a wake-up call for African governments to increase domestic investments in health, education, and infrastructure. This is possible through improved governance, increased domestic resource mobilization, and the strategic prioritization of key sectors. This will depend on the political will, institutional capacity and strategic vision of the leaders. Moreover, in a context of strong governance, aid cuts could encourage local accountability, foster sustainable local solutions, and stimulate political ownership of public services. But in a context where governance is weak or unstable, the reduction of aid could, on the contrary, cause harmful effects such as the collapse of services, an increase in inequalities, etc. Finally, there are countries and sectors that have thrived on reduced external aid, such as the education sector in Zambia after the UK temporarily suspended some of its aid in 2018 due to suspicions of mismanagement.”

“The U.S. aid cuts should not be romanticized, but they may serve as a necessary jolt. African governments cannot indefinitely outsource their development responsibilities. In fact, a reduced reliance on foreign aid could catalyze bolder domestic policy, smarter public investment, and greater accountability. We’ve seen sectors like mobile banking in Kenya and community health in Rwanda thrive through home-grown solutions, not donor blueprints. Where donor dependency weakens urgency, austerity often unlocks innovation. But that requires political will and legal infrastructure that supports enterprise, equity, and local ownership. This is Africa’s stress test – and an opportunity to design systems that are not just sustainable, but sovereign.”

DevelopmentAid: What evidence, if any, suggests that reductions to foreign aid lead to stronger local leadership or innovation in service delivery?

“In some West African countries, people have realized that despite receiving a lot of aid, their countries are still underdeveloped. Some countries have recently interrupted cooperation with main technical and financial partners, turning to the transformation of local opportunities as a lever for national development. In doing so, thanks to the strong improvement in governance caused by aid cuts, the investment made in some sectors over less than five years appears to have had greater effects than those made by the country in a few recent decades. These governments have considerably improved local services delivered to the population, including road infrastructure, water and electricity supply, and the development of the agriculture, health and education sectors. As they say, ‘’sometimes, something bad is good”. The reduction to foreign aid has led to stronger local leadership where local authorities have realized that development is possible when conceptualized and decided upon by the beneficiaries themselves.”

“It’s very simple, and I’ll give you a local example: A farmer has received humanitarian aid for five years to increase his production. After these five years, he no longer receives aid. Should he stay like that and do nothing? No, he should try to develop an approach to farming without the aid he was receiving. He must cultivate his field according to his own means, while setting himself reasonable objectives. By dint of working his field, he will eventually understand how to bring his production to fruition. Then he can think about setting up a farmer’s association. Reducing humanitarian aid is certainly a challenge, and challenges are made to be met. That’s why governments have set up national development strategies to facilitate domestic investment, fight corruption and strengthen basic sectors such as health, sanitation, and food. This change in mentality is leading rulers to reduce their lifestyle in order to maximize good governance.”

“Several studies and historical examples suggest that reductions to foreign aid can sometimes lead to stronger local leadership and greater innovation in service delivery, including:

• Reduced dependence on foreign aid can lead to significant reform in the health sector. The government can begin to implement more effective community health programs, recruiting and training local health professionals.
• After receiving massive international aid, some countries may gradually seek to move towards self-sufficiency. This can lead to innovative local initiatives, such as community health insurance, which will strengthen access to healthcare.
• Countries that reduce their dependence on aid can develop better local fundraising and administrative capacities, which can strengthen local leadership. One study (by Stanford University) found that some African countries improved efficiency in resource allocation after experiencing aid cuts.
• In the context of accountability mechanisms, aid cuts can also push governments to establish stronger accountability mechanisms, responding directly to the needs and expectations of their citizens, thereby reinforcing the legitimacy and acceptance of local leadership.
• And finally, cases of collaboration and partnership: very often, as foreign aid declines, governments seek to work more closely with the private sector and civil society, which can lead to innovative collaborations such as, in some countries, initiatives that have emerged to integrate local businesses into the provision of public services, thereby increasing innovation.”

See also: Africa struggles to rise to the challenge as USAID funding freeze spurs innovation and self-reliance

DevelopmentAid: Are there examples of countries or sectors in Africa that have thrived despite – or because of – reduced external aid?

“Humanitarian aid has spread to all development sectors, but this doesn’t mean that humanitarian aid helps to develop the sector. This is because countries become dependent on aid in the same way as a person becomes addicted to a drug, and eventually the drug is useless and the person is obliged to increase the dose, and eventually the drug wears off. Humanitarian aid is a fleeting solution to an unsustainable situation. It’s often said that instead of giving fish to a needy person, teach him to fish so that he can be independent. Humanitarian aid doesn’t make you independent; it makes you a prisoner. There are countries that have excelled despite reduced external aid. Rwanda, for example, impressed other African countries by refusing most humanitarian aid after the 1994 genocide, adopting an approach based on self-sufficiency and good governance, and building development policies that focused on innovation and entrepreneurship. Botswana has also adopted a sound management approach to its natural resource, diamonds. Today, there’s also the alliance of Sahel states (Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger), which have formed a block and are gradually pulling through despite reduced humanitarian aid.”

“Many countries and sectors in Africa have shown signs of prosperity amid a reduction in foreign aid. Here are a few striking examples:

• Ghana. In the 2000s, Ghana began to see a reduction in aid, particularly in the agricultural sector. The country opted for a sustainable agricultural development policy. This has boosted productivity and food security. Programs to finance local agriculture, along with increased investment in education, have helped Ghana to become one of the most economically stable countries in West Africa.
• Ethiopia. Although Ethiopia has long been a major aid recipient, the country has shown signs of growth even with reduced aid. The government has focused on infrastructure development, particularly in the energy sector (such as the Renaissance Dam). This strategy has stimulated industrialization and attracted foreign investment, especially in the textile industry and agricultural sector, leading to rapid economic growth.
• Kenya. Kenya has experienced a decline in international aid as part of its efforts to reduce donor dependency. The country has begun to focus on technological innovation, particularly in the digital sector. Initiatives such as M-Pesa, a mobile payment platform, have revolutionized the financial sector and strengthened economic inclusion. This development has enabled Kenya to become a leader in Africa’s start-up ecosystem.”

“There is evidence across African countries such as Ethiopia, Rwanda, Ghana, and Senegal, that reduced aid is not a stagnation factor. In that respective order, we observe, among other things: the development of decentralization models for certain services, with an emphasis on local governance; the implementation of innovative technological solutions (e.g., drones for blood delivery, digital health platforms); the adoption of public-private partnership models for service delivery; and a willingness to broaden the tax base to compensate for the loss of funding. However, we also have evidence of failures to develop local leadership following a reduction in foreign aid. This leads us to take a more nuanced stance, as World Bank reports and a 2014 study show that a decline in aid in middle-income countries has sometimes led to stronger governance reforms, but this heavily depends on local institutions. Other research (Brookings, ODI) also highlights that the link between aid reduction and local leadership is possible, but not automatic: it requires incentives, a clear national vision, and internal accountability mechanisms.”

“Historical examples offer mixed insights. Rwanda and Botswana, for instance, have successfully leveraged reduced aid dependency to build strong, accountable institutions and sustainable development models (Wolfe, 2018). In contrast, fragile states like South Sudan risk severe disruptions without external support (Fischer, 2019). Evidence also suggests that, when paired with good governance and strategic planning, aid reductions can spur reforms in taxation, service delivery, and policy autonomy (Booth, 2014). Ultimately, aid cuts alone are not a panacea. For them to serve as a true wake-up call, African governments must commit to investing in health, education, and infrastructure, while fostering local leadership and innovation. Without this, the sudden loss of aid risks widening inequality and undermining decades of progress (Gavin, 2018).”

DevelopmentAid: What are the impacts of the official decision to shutting the U.S. Agency for International Development?

“The immediate effect of shutting USAID will be felt by the thousands of beneficiaries and employees of the agency and its many contractors and grantees. Beyond expressing American indifference to the suffering of some of the world’s most vulnerable people, other nations will call into question their relationship with the United States and perhaps seek closer ties with other countries that provide aid more reliably. China of course comes to mind. The longer-term effects will depend on whether and how current USAID functions are incorporated into the State Department. U.S. assistance has never been completely independent of U.S. foreign policy, but it will presumably become even less independent under the State Department. Humanitarian aid requires infrastructure and stockpiles of supplies that can be moved relatively quickly. How quickly the U.S. can resume providing humanitarian assistance depends above all upon the political will of the Administration to do so, but it will likely also require time to reestablish some of the networks that have been abandoned. It is too early to tell whether a long-term process of deglobalization is underway. However, I do not see emerging economies being able to reshape assistance on their own terms. This is primarily because the overall amount of assistance available is likely to become less so that getting aid may require political as well as economic policy assurances.”

“The global closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has suspended numerous international development initiatives. Indeed, USAID was a key partner for many developing countries, supporting local communities to build resilience to the economic impacts of climate change, as well as improving education systems, governance, and especially healthcare. USAID stood out for its ability to deliver humanitarian assistance directly and close to the communities in need. In my view, this suspension will lead to a sudden and disruptive interruption, with no possibility to sustain the progress made on the ground, particularly regarding the Sustainable Development Goals. Many communities will be severely affected by this immediate cessation of operations, since they had been working closely with various USAID-funded projects. The economic impact of this suspension should not be underestimated either. Many people are facing unemployment, and are being pushed into a state of vulnerability and socio-economic precocity. Furthermore, the governments that had collaborated on these initiatives now find themselves having to carry on alone with large-scale projects that were launched with the promise of USAID’s financial and technical support. As the saying goes, “nature abhors a vacuum”: with USAID’s sudden withdrawal from the international aid stage, states and community actors will inevitably turn to other donors, or be left to face the challenges of local development on their own. This decision fundamentally challenges the existing framework for the allocation and management of international aid resources. States will likely be much more cautious in the future before committing to such forms of collaboration.”

See also: Who will take the United States’ place on the apex of international aid? | Experts’ Opinions

The reduction of U.S. foreign aid has also created significant challenges and increased competition in the international development job market. In this new landscape, experts are encouraged to explore innovative approaches alongside traditional methods to stand out from the competition. A DevelopmentAid Individual Professional Membership offers candidates a series of helpful resources to unlock new opportunities. It gives them access to more than 5,000 openings, tenders and grants for individuals, the contact information of organizations and donors, salary trends, webinars, news and much more.