The LSE Global Health Initiative will be hosting a panel on campus this Monday, March 3rd at 5:30pm, focused on the recent termination of USAID funding and its implications on epidemic control on the border of Uganda and the DRC.
Trump’s recent crackdown on USAID has had deep financial and humanitarian consequences. As funding is frozen and officials are side-lined, crises are unfolding worldwide. Professor Tim Allen (LSE Department for International Development) witnessed this at the Uganda-DRC border: halted aid has exacerbated health and security risks, while a rise in illicit trade has highlighted the economic interests partially driving the US retreat from humanitarian aid. Sophia Anders (LSE ID) provides context on the situation in this blog post, originally published by the LSE International Development blog.
Aid workers, diplomats and lawmakers have been trying to make sense of a series of concerning developments regarding the main US agency for foreign aid (USAID). On February 2nd, President Donald Trump declared that it was run by “radical lunatics” who his administration will “get out”. In a similar vein, Elon Musk, the head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, called USAID “a criminal and evil organisation” whose “time to die” is here, on X. Both Trump and Musk agree on cutting, what they consider, wasteful US government spending on USAID. This includes putting on leave two top security officials and restricting email access for other officials.
Looking ahead, Trump and his team have made it clear that they want US foreign aid to align with their “America First” agenda. Suggestions are also circulating that USAID will be absorbed into the state department. Internally, current and former officials consider this a test case for the Trump administration looking to wield executive power, through unilaterally acting around, and also against, Congress. Externally, this has serious (financial) implications for long-standing US development and assistance programmes. As such, Trump has frozen billions of dollars in foreign assistance, causing serious harm to humanitarian efforts worldwide (and potentially allowing China to fill the void left by the US). Already, this prompted crises in humanitarian and development organisations involved in everything from life-saving medical activities to anti-narcotics efforts to clean water programmes.
Professor Tim Allen from the LSE International Development Department witnessed the immediate effects that are already felt on the ground at the border between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The situation has already been precarious before budget cuts for USAID, but is being dramatically exacerbated by it. There are cases of Monkeypox, cholera, Marburg virus, as well as Ebola on both sites of the border. Now, pandemic surveillance with US funding as well as HIV services have been stopped.
Moreover, the area has previously been attacked by the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) and schoolchildren were massacred a year ago. The Ugandan army has crossed into DRC ostensibly to secure the border, but it seems they are also supporting the M23 rebellion. President Musuveni’s son, for instance, has openly supported the rebellion in the past.
Beyond this, Professor Allen noticed the omnipresence of soldiers, including in hospitals and health centres. Supposedly, this is for health security, but it also seems to help monitor trucks crossing the border, as well as to tax the informal trade in valuable items being brought across. For context, Uganda has increased gold exports tenfold since 2022, and an estimated 95 percent comes from the DRC. Other commodities are essential for the manufacture of mobile phones and a host of other things – cobalt, tin, tantalum, tungsten etc. Presumably, the illicit trading is condoned, even supported, by the governments of countries importing items from the region, including the US. Given the scale of activities, and the escalation in commodities from DRC passing through Uganda, reports from USAID staff are ostensibly not welcome in Washington. This might be one of the reasons why Trump is attacking the agency. As such, Washington’s crackdown on USAID appears not just as a domestic policy shift with disastrous consequences that are already felt on the ground, but also, potentially, as a strategy to ensure US economic and trade interests worldwide.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect those of the International Development LSE blog, the Global Health at LSE Blog, or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image credit: Laura via Flickr. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.
