The Shutdown of USAID and the Rise of Conflict in Africa

The rapid shutdown of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in February 2025, initiated by the DOGE administration and spearheaded by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, is associated with a wave of violent conflicts across Africa. This is the conclusion of a recent study published in the journal Science. The decision to dismantle what had been the world's largest national humanitarian donor has had immediate and severe repercussions.

Previous tracking models had already suggested that the collapse of USAID might have caused approximately 762,000 preventable deaths, including 500,000 children, and that the cuts could lead to over nine million preventable deaths by 2030, according to a study published in The Lancet in February 2026. The new research adds a crucial piece to the puzzle, providing the earliest direct evidence of the impact of these cuts on the incidence of violent events.

The Impact on Conflicts and Aid Dynamics

The new study highlights a rapid increase in the likelihood, severity, and lethality of violence across nearly one thousand subnational administrative units in Africa. Austin L. Wright, co-author of the study and associate professor at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, noted that in regions that had received the most support from USAID, the cuts were associated with a 6.5% probability of any conflict event, compared to regions that received no aid.

The statistics are alarming: the probability of protests and riots increased by 10%, the number of conflict events grew by 10.6%, battle counts by 6.9%, and battle-related fatalities by 9.3%. The analysis confirmed no preexisting differences in conflict trends between high- and low-exposure regions before the USAID shutdown. Between 2021 and 2024, USAID had helped save an estimated 91 million lives, about a third of which were children under five years old, operating on a budget that accounted for less than 1% of total U.S. federal spending.

Long-Term Consequences and Global Security

The impact of aid on communities is complex and context-dependent. Aid can reduce conflicts by mitigating the opportunity costs of violence (the “opportunity cost effect”), but it can also fuel conflicts over the handling and distribution of resources (the “rapacity effect”). According to the new study, the USAID shutdown, unprecedented in its scale and speed, produced the worst of both worlds.

When funds are rapidly withdrawn, it creates a shock to the opportunity cost, making participation in unproductive activities like violence and crime more attractive. However, the speed of the shutdown did not allow for the mitigation of the “rapacity effect,” as the infrastructure and resources over which individuals or groups might fight remained present. This situation creates a “ticking time bomb,” removing the conflict-reducing side of aid while leaving behind the conflict-enhancing part of aid. The insecurities generated do not stay where they are created; they travel, with potential long-term consequences for the safety of the United States and its allies, as demonstrated by the seizure of USAID supplies by Iran-backed Houthi groups in Yemen.

The Loss of Trust and the Costs of Reconstruction

The demolition of USAID by the DOGE administration prompted many European allies to pull back on their own foreign aid, further exacerbating the effects. Although other humanitarian organizations are struggling to mitigate the consequences, the loss of trust caused by the USAID shutdown is likely permanent, with ominous long-term implications. Even if USAID were reactivated, these effects could not be reversed, as the reputation for reliability has been irreversibly damaged.

As Wright stated, the shutdown of such a significant agency represents a “reputational bomb” that makes it extremely difficult to rebuild trust and intervention capacity. From a soft power and global perspective, the reputational effects are tremendous and will create wedges and inefficiencies. Simply restarting USAID would cost much more than merely restoring the same budget, due to the need to rebuild relationships and credibility from scratch.