New research released on Monday warns that more than 22 million people—many of them young children—could die preventable deaths by 2030 as a direct result of sweeping aid cuts by the United States and several major European countries. The findings, reported by AFP and submitted to The Lancet Global Health, paint a stark picture of the consequences of simultaneous reductions in official development assistance from the US, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, marking the first time in three decades that all four nations have slashed foreign aid at once.
According to the study, which is currently awaiting peer review, these unprecedented cuts could lead to 22.6 million additional deaths over the next five years, with 5.4 million of those being children under the age of five. The researchers, a team from Spain, Brazil, and Mozambique, estimate the range of excess deaths could be anywhere from 16.3 million to 29.3 million, depending on the severity of the cuts and external shocks such as wars, economic downturns, or climate-related disasters. Even in a less severe scenario, they warn, the death toll could reach 9.4 million.
Gonzalo Fanjul, policy and development director at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) and one of the study's authors, told AFP, "It is the first time in the last 30 years that France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States are all cutting aid at the same time." He emphasized the magnitude of this collective withdrawal: "The European countries do not compare with the US, but when you combine all of them, the blow to the global aid system is extraordinary. It's absolutely unprecedented."
The research draws on historical data demonstrating how foreign aid has significantly reduced deaths from preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The authors argue that the loss of this support will not only end life-saving projects but also dismantle institutional capacities that have been painstakingly built over decades of international cooperation. "The problem has been the speed and the brutality of the process. In six months, we are experiencing a process that should have taken over a decade or more," Fanjul added.
The humanitarian alarm comes in the wake of dramatic policy shifts in Washington. After taking office, President Donald Trump, reportedly advised by billionaire Elon Musk, slashed US foreign assistance by more than 80 percent and dismantled the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which, until then, had managed $35 billion in aid in the 2024 fiscal year. This move, according to the researchers, set the stage for a domino effect among other major donors.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration's policy before Congress, asserting that foreign aid did not serve core US interests. He pointed to the voting records of aid recipient nations at the United Nations, arguing that US assistance should be reserved for cases with "clear and narrow aims." Rubio also dismissed concerns about the human cost, stating, "There have been no deaths from US aid cuts," and accused critics of being part of what he called an "NGO industrial complex."
Rather than stepping in to fill the gap, Britain, France, and Germany have also reduced their aid budgets, citing domestic budgetary pressures and a shift toward increased defense spending in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Among the world's top donors, only Japan has kept its aid levels relatively steady over the past two years.
The impact of these cuts, the study contends, will be felt most acutely in the developing world, where progress against preventable diseases has often depended on sustained international funding. Davide Rasella, the principal investigator on the research, highlighted the scale of the budget changes by comparing them to recent geopolitical spending. "The Trump administration has promised $20 billion to prop up Argentina. In the world context these amounts of money are nothing huge," Rasella told AFP. He lamented, "Policymakers change budgets and they really have no perception how many lives are at stake."
The research was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation and Spain's science ministry. A spokesperson for the Rockefeller Foundation expressed hope that the forthcoming peer-reviewed publication would further clarify the stakes: "This data is an urgent alarm for the world. The peer-reviewed numbers will make even clearer the human cost of inaction and the profound opportunity we have to save lives."
Historically, foreign aid from the US and European donors has played a pivotal role in combating infectious diseases, supporting vaccination campaigns, and building healthcare infrastructure in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions. The withdrawal of such support, researchers warn, could reverse decades of progress. The study’s estimates are based on past data showing how increases in aid have directly correlated with reductions in mortality, particularly among children under five and populations at risk from HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.
Adding to the uncertainty, the researchers note that the ultimate toll could vary depending on which specific programs are cut and how recipient countries and other donors respond. External shocks such as new conflicts, global economic instability, or worsening climate disasters could further exacerbate the impact, pushing the death toll even higher.
The political motivations behind the cuts have sparked fierce debate. Supporters of the reductions argue that domestic priorities and national security concerns should take precedence, especially in light of shifting global alliances and economic pressures at home. Critics, however, contend that the rapid and sweeping nature of the cuts is irresponsible, with potentially catastrophic consequences for millions of people who depend on international aid for survival.
As the world watches and waits for the peer review process to conclude, the authors of the study urge policymakers to consider the scale of human suffering at stake. "It's not just about numbers on a budget sheet," Fanjul stressed. "Every dollar cut translates into lives lost, and the world must decide what kind of legacy it wants to leave."
The debate over foreign aid is far from new, but the scale and speed of these recent cuts are without precedent. As the research makes clear, the decisions made in the world’s wealthiest capitals over the next few years will reverberate across continents—shaping the health, wellbeing, and very survival of millions.
With the fate of so many hanging in the balance, the coming months may prove decisive in determining whether the world steps back from the brink—or allows a generation to be lost to preventable tragedy.
