What does the decline in international aid indicate?

To anyone even feigning a modicum of interest in the landscape of global politics over the last decade, hearing the phrase ‘the decline in international aid’ should not be anything akin to a surprise. Whether you prefer UK or European politics, it is growing clear that international aid is being continually cut across the globe, and that trend is not changing anytime soon.

In the case of the UK, the most recent decreases of international aid spending, under former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, were to make way for an increased defence budget. This, while not directly correlating, has been thoroughly supported by President Trump, who has encouraged NATO member countries to spend more on defence. Over the last few years, the disparity in spending between the US and other NATO members has acted as a continual point of contention.

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) has stated that by 2028, net ODA (“official development assistance”) is projected to be 9.9% lower than it was in 2025, removing a linchpin of international aid that prevents lower-income countries from succumbing to catastrophes – epidemics, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.

This decrease has been viewed as a “betrayal” by several development charities across the world,

with the charity Save the Children calling it a “betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable children and the UK’s national interest.” This is in light of the UK changing the aid budget from 0.5% of GNI (Gross National Income) to 0.3% in 2027. Furthermore, Labour MP Sarah Champion called the government’s act of cutting the aid budget “a false economy that will only make the world less safe.”

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has recently faced the brunt of these international aid cuts.

This most recent Ebola outbreak is suspected to surpass the West African Ebola outbreak between 2014-2016,

with 2325 already dead. The rate of diagnosis, and therefore treatment, has been severely affected by the recent decreases in international aid funding. Local health infrastructure in the DRC has been consequently weakened, “leaving one of the poorest countries in the world still more vulnerable.”

Furthermore, this has followed the United States’ earlier decision to leave the World Health Organisation, where their funds could have been used to directly benefit the crisis in the DRC. Instead, their rejection of the intergovernmental organisation severs all former ties previous presidents may have made in the way of international healthcare aid.

The Guardian has described the recent outlook of international aid as “viewing international aid as luxury expenditure,” demonstrating how countries are moving away from global cohesion and beginning to move towards protection of their own, closer interests. While this could be argued to be a measure of austerity politics, certainly seen in the growing far-right movements across Europe and North America, it could also be a notable moment of fear and protectionism in the global landscapes.

While President Trump makes unpredictable, sometimes violent, movements across different swathes of the globe each week, whether military, economic, or otherwise, no country in the world is guaranteed security.

This idea of desperate attempts to gain security in times of chaos is neither a new idea nor an unfounded one,

based in Thucydides’ commentary of the Peloponnesian War; self-interest will ultimately govern any international conflict. Therefore, a movement from international aid funding to defence spending should be entirely expected in times of such uncertainty. Whether it is an agreeable prospect is an entirely different question.

Especially with President Trump in power over the next 3 years, it is unlikely that times will become easier for any countries that rely on international aid, as many powerful countries will continue to cut loose international aid spending in favour of expanding their weapons arsenal.