Key Takeaways

• USAID funding cuts halted life-saving programs around the world.
• A small team of political appointees froze thousands of projects.
• In South Sudan, clinics closed amid a deadly cholera outbreak.
• Delayed aid led to more infections and uncounted deaths.

Aid agencies once celebrated for saving lives faced sudden collapse. Within weeks of taking office, a small group of Trump appointees ordered draconian USAID funding cuts. As a result, programs that provided water, food and medicine shut down without warning. Meanwhile, communities in crises lost their safety net.

The Impact of USAID Funding Cuts

In late January, senior aides gathered to toast their first month in office. They had already bypassed career experts and moved USAID into a cramped office above a retail store. There, they built a moat of empty desks so no one could overhear them. Yet warnings poured in from diplomats and aid workers. They said the cuts would cost lives. However, the team pressed on.

By mid-February, they planned to eliminate 90 percent of USAID’s work. The agency had been the world’s largest humanitarian donor since 1961. Now it teetered on the brink of ruin. Political aides like Peter Marocco and Jeremy Lewin, who lacked aid experience, decided which programs to ax. Often, they flipped through basic spreadsheets and hit “terminate.”

How Trump Appointees Dismantled USAID Funding Cuts

First, they paused all contracts with an executive order. Then, Elon Musk’s newly formed Department of Government Efficiency joined the review. Finally, OMB director Russell Vought signed off. Publicly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio promised to save critical programs. In private, aides blocked payments and ignored urgent requests.

Moreover, they suspended nearly all USAID staff. They even delayed paying the U.S. embassy’s electricity bills in Juba. When career officials protested, Lewin quipped, “Just throw them in the pot.” By March, thousands of projects lay dormant. Less than a thousand stayed “active” on paper, but most lacked funding.

Cholera Outbreak and Clinic Closures in South Sudan

In South Sudan’s Rubkona County, a brutal cholera outbreak had infected 36,000 people in three months. Aid groups funded by USAID ran 12 clinics with IV bags that cost just 62 cents each. Those bags helped save more than 500 lives in the outbreak’s early weeks.

Then USAID funding cuts struck. World Relief and other nonprofits lost their grants overnight. In one village, Tor Top watched his neighbors fight cholera in vain. When the clinic doors locked, many died. His mother, Nyarietna, fell sick. He paddled her eight hours by canoe to a hospital. She died on the way home. Top buried her in his backyard.

Real Losses: Lives and Livelihoods

Across South Sudan, aid workers scrambled for new donors. Yet they faced bureaucratic roadblocks in Washington. Months passed without funding. Clinics closed, sanitation crews stopped, and cholera surged again.

In the Bentiu refugee camp, trash piled up in drainage ditches. Latrines overflowed with human waste. Flies swarmed and disease spread. Pregnant mothers and babies faced dire risks. In one heartbreaking case, 28-year-old Rebecca died after giving birth. She contracted cholera from filthy toilets. Her newborn lived, but she did not.

A Flawed Review Process

USAID’s normal grant review involved experts assessing needs. This time, starched spreadsheets decided life or death. A key file listed programs as “extension No. 4” or “allocation of funds.” Political staff flagged dozens for termination without checking details. Even when some grants were reinstated, the money never arrived.

By late March, President Trump’s aides claimed the review was over. They said 1,000 programs would continue. Yet most remained unfunded. As a result, South Sudan’s worst cholera epidemic in history killed at least 1,600 people—and likely many more uncounted.

Calls for Accountability

Aid workers and diplomats call the process “gross negligence.” A senior contracting officer blasted leadership failures in a scathing email. He wrote that lives depended on those awards. Yet the agency ignored deadlines, leaving programs to collapse.

In response, State Department officials defended the cuts as needed reforms. They argued that U.S. taxpayers demand accountability. Still, they admitted “some disruptions” occurred. When pressed on deaths, they blamed South Sudan’s government for corruption.

However, career experts insist the cuts were arbitrary. They say the Trump administration never distinguished between low-impact programs and vital health services. As a result, the U.S. undermined its own global credibility.

Moving Forward

Today, the Biden administration is restoring key aid channels. Yet rebuilding trust and programs takes time. In South Sudan, clinics are reopening. Still, refugee camps face seasonal floods. Without sustained funding, communities will struggle again.

Moreover, aid groups warn that the next crisis could overwhelm fragile systems. They urge Congress to set clearer rules against abrupt freezes. In a world of rising conflicts and climate disasters, reliable aid must not hinge on political whims. USAID funding cuts showed how quickly lives can vanish when aid stops.

FAQs

What triggered the USAID funding cuts?

An executive order on the first day of Trump’s term froze all foreign aid. Political appointees then reviewed thousands of grants. They terminated most programs without consulting career experts.

How did the cuts affect South Sudan?

Clinics and sanitation services run by USAID partners shut down. A major cholera outbreak exploded. Aid workers had no funds to treat the sick or rebuild latrines. Many people died or fell ill.

Were any lifesaving programs spared?

On paper, a small number of grants remained “active.” However, most lacked actual funding for months. Only in late summer did some money finally arrive, after lawsuits and court orders.

What lessons emerged from this crisis?

Experts stress that aid reviews must balance efficiency with human impact. They call for transparent processes and input from career staff. Otherwise, abrupt cuts leave vulnerable people to suffer.