Analysing the Consequences of the UK’s Aid Cuts 

The UK is hosting the Global Partnerships Conference in London this week, bringing together governments, philanthropic organisations, and civil society groups to build new partnerships in international development. The event showcases the UK’s revised approach to mutual partnerships, but comes against the backdrop of the decision to cut the UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) budget to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI) – a reduction of around £6 billion per year. 

This follows last year’s drop in ODA to 0.43%, the lowest level since 2008, and places the UK on track for the sharpest aid cuts of any G7 country by 2027. These reductions come amid multiple global crises in Sudan, Lebanon, Palestine, and beyond, where humanitarian needs are rapidly escalating. Communities in some of the world’s poorest and most fragile regions will face the harshest consequences of global aid cuts. Though framed as necessary for defence, these cuts ultimately undermine long-term global stability, deepening insecurity and inequality across the world. The Government should urgently reverse course and restore ODA to 0.7%. 

Large-scale reductions in bilateral aid will have significant consequences, especially for Africa and the Middle East, where several vulnerable countries without ringfenced ODA allocations risk being left behind. Projections indicate that bilaterial aid to African nations will fall by 56% by 2028/29. Funding for countries like Yemen and Afghanistan, both devastated by years of conflict and instability, is also set to decline. At the same time, the Government’s crisis reserve will shrink by £10 million, hindering its ability to respond to sudden humanitarian emergencies. Furthermore, UK climate finance for developing countries – drawn from the ODA budget – will effectively be halved, despite the commitment made at COP29 to scale up international climate finance to $300 billion. This reduction will undermine climate adaptation and resilience across the Global South, where communities are already facing escalating climate shocks. 

Therefore, while the Government prioritises countries impacted by conflict, it largely overlooks those facing perpetual challenges such as underdevelopment, inadequate healthcare systems, and limited access to education. In the wider context of simultaneous aid cuts by the likes of Germany, France, and the United States, the cumulative effect will be widening global inequalities and worsening outcomes for the world’s most vulnerable. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has warned of a “triple shock” of rising energy prices, food insecurity, and stunted economic growth stemming from the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. It estimates that 32 million people, primarily in developing countries, could be pushed into poverty as a direct consequence of this global economic downturn. These pressures will intensify existing inequities, highlighting the urgency of sustained foreign aid from not just the UK, but from other international donors. 

Although the Foreign Secretary has stated that aid to Palestine, Sudan, Ukraine, and now Lebanon has been “fully protected” – meaning these countries will not see reductions in their bilateral aid allocations – the practical impacts of overall ODA cuts are nonetheless evident. In El Fasher – the Sudanese city that was seized by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in October 2025 – the British Government failed to take reasonable steps to prevent atrocities that the UN has since confirmed amounted to genocide. According to a report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI), “resource constraints” contributed to the Foreign Office taking the “least ambitious” approach to protecting civilians. This demonstrates that even where UK aid is ringfenced, the broader scaling back of ODA capacity is having profound humanitarian costs. 

Looking ahead, global aid cuts are projected to lead to more than 22 million avoidable deaths by 2030, including over 5 million children, due to underfunded healthcare systems in impoverished countries. This starkly illustrates the scale of development needs that ODA is essential to addressing. Many developing states rely on external support to deliver critical services, respond to emergencies, and build long-term resilience. Without this investment, communities will face heightened vulnerability to both immediate humanitarian emergencies and sustained challenges as a result of widening development gaps. 

The Government has framed aid cuts as necessary for defence, which ignores that development is a cornerstone of global security. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has described development as “the first line of defence against conflict”, adding that “the farther a country is from sustainable and inclusive development, the closer it is to instability”. Indeed, effective development supports job creation, strengthens public services, and builds resilience to climate and economic shocks, in turn improving social cohesion at both the local and national levels.  

In contrast, withdrawing assistance leaves a vacuum for malign actors to exploit marginalised communities, particularly in fragile states. Research consistently shows that reduced aid could contribute to increased cycles of violence, as communities become more susceptible to mobilisation by armed groups. In countries with limited capacity to absorb economic shocks, this can exacerbate conflict, poverty, and long-term insecurity. Cutting aid to fund defence, therefore, erodes global security rather than enhancing it. 

Therefore, the Government’s decision to proceed with cuts to ODA at a moment of unprecedented global humanitarian crisis will inevitably have drastic consequences for vulnerable populations who rely on international assistance. As other countries retreat from their historic commitments to humanitarian and development support, the UK has an opportunity to demonstrate genuine leadership, exercise soft power, and provide critical help to those in urgent need. 

Cutting aid, however, will cost lives and exacerbate global insecurity rather than reduce it. MCF calls on the Government to urgently reconsider its approach and ultimately reverse the ODA reductions, restoring the UK’s 0.7% commitment to ensure it prioritises support for the world’s most marginalised communities.