New research published in the Science journal suggests the shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) led to sharp increases in violence throughout Africa, with countries that received the most support from the agency experiencing heightened armed clashes, protests, and riots in the months following its dismantling.
The peer-reviewed study was co-authored by Associate Prof. Austin Wright from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and compared conflict data across 870 subnational regions over an 11-month period before and after USAID cuts took effect. The research examined whether withdrawal of US aid correlated with changes in violence levels across Sub-Saharan Africa, which had received the most assistance from USAID for civilian health, food security, and basic service delivery.
What the Right Is Saying
Supporters of the USAID restructuring argue the research does not account for whether the agency was operating efficiently or achieving its stated objectives. Heritage Foundation researchers have questioned whether increased aid correlated with reduced conflict during the years before the shutdown, suggesting the data could reflect pre-existing trends rather than consequences of funding cuts.
The Trump administration has maintained that the reorganization of foreign assistance programs aims to ensure taxpayer dollars deliver measurable results. Officials have pointed to audits identifying waste and duplication within USAID's operations as justification for the overhaul. Conservative commentators including those at the American Enterprise Institute note that other bilateral donors, including European nations and multilateral institutions like the World Bank, have capacity to increase their contributions to fill gaps left by reduced US engagement.
Some Republican lawmakers have expressed support for redirecting foreign aid funding toward domestic priorities while still maintaining targeted assistance for key strategic partners. Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has said any restoration of funding should be conditioned on fundamental reforms to how USAID operates and measures success.
What the Left Is Saying
Democratic lawmakers and humanitarian advocates say the findings underscore the strategic importance of development assistance as a tool for preventing conflict abroad. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said the research demonstrates that cutting foreign aid programs "penny-wise and pound-foolish" risks creating conditions that ultimately require more costly US military interventions.
The International Rescue Committee called the study "empirical confirmation of what aid workers have long understood on the ground." The organization pointed to documented increases in Boko Haram activity in Nigeria, ISIS-affiliated threats to religious freedom in Mozambique, and intensified armed conflict in South Sudan as evidence of deteriorating security conditions following the funding withdrawal. Organizations including Oxfam America argued that USAID's role in funding local governance and conflict-mitigation efforts left a gap that cannot easily be filled by other international donors.
Progressive advocacy groups have urged the administration to restore at least partial funding for humanitarian operations, arguing that civilian assistance programs operate independently of broader foreign policy debates and serve American interests in stability.
What the Numbers Show
The Science journal paper provides specific quantitative findings on conflict trends following USAID's dismantling: areas that relied heavily on US aid experienced an approximately 12.3 percent increase in total conflict events across all categories, a roughly 7.3 percent increase in battle counts, and about a 6.8 percent rise in protests and riots.
In regions at the 75th percentile of exposure to US assistance, researchers found approximately 6.5 percent greater probability of any conflict event compared with regions receiving no US aid. Protests and riots were 10 percent more likely, battle-related fatalities increased by 9.3 percent, and total conflict events rose by 10.6 percent.
Seven countries—Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Kenya, South Sudan, Uganda, and Mozambique—each received more than $400 million annually from USAID before cuts took effect. Sub-Saharan Africa was the primary recipient region for health and food security assistance.
Economic projections published in the Michigan Journal of Economics estimated that Sub-Saharan Africa's economy would be approximately $4.5 billion less by 2030 than projected prior to funding reductions. The Institute for Security Studies calculated that approximately 5.7 million additional Africans could fall below extreme poverty levels by 2030 compared with continuation of previous aid levels, with Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Congo expected to experience the most significant impacts.
The Bottom Line
The research offers empirical data on potential consequences of reducing development assistance, though it does not establish direct causation between funding cuts and specific violent incidents. Critics of the study note the complexity of attributing conflict outcomes to any single factor in regions with numerous overlapping pressures.
What the findings do suggest is that Sub-Saharan African nations heavily dependent on US support may face compounding challenges as aid reductions compound existing instability. The data provides baseline figures against which future trends can be measured regardless of policy direction.
Congress faces decisions about foreign assistance levels in upcoming budget negotiations, where both increased humanitarian funding and continued restructuring have advocates. International partners including the European Union and United Nations have indicated willingness to increase contributions but face their own fiscal constraints. How these dynamics resolve will shape whether the projected economic and poverty impacts materialize or are mitigated by alternative funding sources.