Introduction
Since President Truman’s management of the Cold War, the United States has functioned as an important patron to the Global South, offering the badly needed help and resources to several institutions and agencies that encompass WHO, USAID, the U.S. African Development Foundation, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and the Inter-American Foundation (Mcquilkin, 2014; Munganga, 2017). That is why such institutions have been described as “oxygen tanks,” that are providing services necessary for saving lives to people reeling with health care, physical infrastructure, education as well as other relief measures. For instance, in 2023, America spent $72 billion (£55 billion) on foreign humanitarian assistance and development. Ethiopia was the top African recipient of USAID funding in 2023, with $1.37bn, followed by Somalia with $973m and DR Congo with 943m. Total US aid spending in Africa has hovered around $8bn in recent years (Payson, 2025).
The pledge has helped in the support of nations facing poverty, health crises, and conflict. However, during the November 2024 election, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign promised to “Make America Great Again” (MAGA), which translated to prioritizing domestic interests and reducing America’s involvement in international affairs. After his inauguration, Trump’s administration took aggressive steps to reshape U.S. foreign policy, exiting the WHO, halting USAID programs, and dismantling key development institutions like the Inter-American Foundation and the U.S. African Development Foundation, considering them “unnecessary.” Trump’s objective was to make “America first,” cutting costs and focusing on domestic concerns. This article will address the consequences of such policies on the Global South, namely in regard to humanitarian assistance, achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the growing impact of China and Russia on the continent.
Implications for Achieving Sustainable Development Goals
The withdrawal of foreign aid and disengagement from core global development programs also complicates the pursuit of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with only a few years left before its deadline (2030). The SDGs target the eradication of poverty, improved health, gender equality, and inclusive economic growth, among others (United Nations, 2015). With the U.S. pulling its support for aid programs, countries in the Global South that rely on foreign support to pursue SDGs are left vulnerable. For example, the United States has been one of the world leaders in global health support, HIV/AIDS treatment, and maternal healthcare. USAID program cancellation impacts directly on countries’ ability to attain such health-oriented SDGs. USAID has long been the key provider of HIV/AIDS treatment and medicine, especially for Sub-Saharan Africa, which bears the largest burden of the pandemic. The U.S. withdrawal of funding and the collapse of development programs directly affect millions of people who rely on antiretroviral treatment (ART) and other lifesaving services. The gap in funding not only risks the health of people living with HIV but also weakens the world response to the disease. Countries that have made significant progress in reducing HIV transmission could see those gains reversed as U.S. aid programs are withdrawn. The freeze on USAID funding directly impedes the ability to distribute vital medications, support health infrastructure, and ensure that prevention programs continue. For people living with HIV, the consequences are dire without continued access to medications and healthcare services, the pandemic could take an even greater toll on public health. Malaria No More, a US-based non-profit, warns that a 90-day aid freeze will impede the delivery of 15.6m life-saving drug doses to treat malaria, along with 48m doses of seasonal preventative medication.
With major organizations like the U.S. Institute of Peace dismantled, peacebuilding and conflict resolution initiatives in fragile states have also been severely hindered. Without American support, achieving the SDGs becomes more difficult, especially in regions where the need for foreign assistance is most acute. Trump’s foreign aid cuts have had severe consequences for the Global South, especially in regions already facing complex crises. One stark example is the freeze on USAID programs in Bangladesh, which devastated the lives of over a million Rohingya refugees. Prior to the freeze, funding was already limited, and Myanmar’s civil war had caused a massive refugee crisis, forcing thousands to flee to Bangladesh. The capture of the border region by the Arakan Army, combined with stalled repatriation talks, worsened the situation. Now, with critical aid programs suspended, hospitals have closed, and food, health, and sanitation services are in jeopardy.
This aid freeze is a disaster for refugees, many of whom depend on USAID-funded programs for basic survival. Critical services like maternal health, gender-based violence support, and sanitation programs have been halted, leaving vulnerable populations without necessary resources. Despite reassurances from Bangladesh’s interim government, the Trump administration did not confirm continued support. A memo from U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did mention a humanitarian waiver, but refugees and aid workers report that the effects of the freeze are already being felt, with five hospitals shutting down and many programs at risk of collapse.
Implications for the growing power of Russia and China
In recent times, Russia and China have been moving to increase their presence in global politics, particularly on the African continent. Trump’s decision to shelve foreign assistance programs and dismantle development agencies like USAID is sure to speed up this development, further ingraining the role of these two countries on the continent and other parts of the Global South.
China has also been most visible in Africa through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), under which Chinese-backed massive infrastructure spending across the continent has been witnessed since 2013. Chinese-funded roads, railways, ports, and energy facilities are transforming Africa’s economic landscape. The investments bring vital infrastructure but with enormous debt burdens, and in doing so, they also trigger concerns over long-term economic dependence on China. As America withdraws from global commitments to provide aid, African nations, already in debt to China for the most part, will increasingly look for financial aid and cooperation with Beijing for development. China’s growing economic role in Africa is matched by its growing political influence. The Chinese government has cultivated strong relationships with the continent’s leadership, exchanging unqualified support for access to resources and strategic reorientations. As the United States recedes from its role as a global leader in foreign aid, those partnerships with Beijing are likely to grow stronger and allow Beijing to continue leveraging its growing role on the continent to shape political and economic policy across Africa.
Russia, too, has come a long way in Africa, particularly in security, military, and political engagement. Russian military mercenaries like the Wagner Group have been deployed to numerous African countries, often in conflict zones where the U.S. has retreated its presence. In addition to selling military assistance to regimes in exchange for access to resources, Russia has expanded its political clout by offering arms sales and security services without the strings usually attached to Western aid. The growing Russian presence is also experienced in the diplomatic front. Russia has been actively courting African leaders, forging connections through such initiatives as the Russia-Africa summit. While the U.S. turns inward and reduces its global commitments, Russia perceives this as an opportunity to fill the void left by the West. To African countries confronted with challenges of governance, conflict, and economic difficulties, Russia’s non-intervention approach can be appealing as it gives more autonomy in their dealings without the strings of democratic reforms or human rights issues traditionally attached with Western aid.
Conclusion
While Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan resonated with those focused on prioritizing American interests, it had significant implications for the Global South. By reducing foreign aid and dismantling institutions like USAID, the U.S. has withdrawn from its previous role in global development. As a result, nations like China and Russia are increasingly stepping in to fill this void, especially in Africa. However, this should not be seen as a setback for Global South. Rather, it represents an opportunity for these regions, particularly Africa, to take charge of their own development. The key is to recognize that self-reliance and proactive leadership are crucial for sustainable progress. No nation can depend entirely on external assistance, and the path to change lies in the hands of the people and governments within these countries. The Global South must see itself not as passive recipients, but as active agents of its own future. Although the impacts of the MAGA policy may be painful for the Global South in the short term, prudent application of resources and effective leadership will ensure lasting benefits in the medium to long term. It presents opportunities particularly for Africa to build new partnerships and make use of continental trade agreements for its own development.
Reference
Mcquilkin., C. R. (2014). An Excellent Laboratory: U.S. Foreign Aid In Paraguay, 1942-1954. Master Thesis ( University Of Oregon)
Munganga, D L. (2017). The Effectiveness of U.S. Development Assistance in Fostering Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa,” McNair Scholars Research Journal: Vol. 10 , Article 10. Available at: https://commons.emich.edu/mcnair/vol10/iss1/10
Payton, B. (2025). Africa exposed as the future of USAID hangs by thread. Retrieved February 22, 2025, from https://african.business/2025/02/politics/africa-exposed-as-future-of-usaid-hangs-by-thread
UN (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, 42809, 1-13.
