Prime Minister Keir Starmer is under fire for reducing the UK’s contribution to the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP) by a staggering one-third, a move critics deem hypocritical given his previous commitments to combat hunger. The Labour leader had pledged to prioritise the issue during his G20 summit address in Brazil as he took office, yet recent budget decisions have raised serious concerns about the impact on vulnerable populations.
Funding Cuts Amidst Rising Need
The UK government slashed its funding to the WFP from $610 million (£448 million) in 2024 to $435 million (£319 million) last year. Michael Bates, a former Conservative aid minister and current peer, voiced his discontent, noting that cases of starvation are escalating globally. “If this was just a UK story it would be bad enough, but we are seeing it is a French story, it is a German story and a US story,” Bates remarked. “All these countries are cutting. There will be a time lag, but this will cost lives. We have a responsibility to protect these lives.”
Bates’s comments resonate particularly given the dire situation in Afghanistan, where nearly 23 million people are in urgent need of assistance, with 12 million suffering from food insecurity. The WFP has already had to shut down 298 relief sites across the country, further straining resources.
Political Repercussions
Starmer’s decision to reduce international aid to a mere 0.3 per cent of GDP has sparked accusations of betrayal, especially as it contradicts previous commitments to restore aid levels to 0.7 per cent. The cuts come as the government simultaneously increases defence spending to 2.5 per cent, highlighting a stark prioritisation of military readiness over humanitarian support.
Critics, including Flora Alexander, the UK executive director of the International Rescue Committee, have expressed alarm, stating, “With the aid budget at its lowest in decades, every pound must go where it saves lives and tackles the root causes of crisis.” She emphasised the need to focus on fragile and conflict-affected states, where the humanitarian crisis is most acute.
A Broader Crisis
The ramifications of the UK’s funding cuts extend beyond its borders. The United Nations has warned that 55 million people in Central and West Africa are facing a hunger crisis, with countries like Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger accounting for a significant portion of food insecurity. In Nigeria, approximately 15,000 individuals are at risk of severe famine for the first time in nearly a decade, underscoring the urgency of the situation.
In December 2025, the Prime Minister faced criticism from foreign ministers and charities alike for redirecting funds towards initiatives aimed at curbing illegal immigration from Bangladesh while simultaneously cutting aid. This juxtaposition has raised eyebrows and intensified scrutiny on his administration’s priorities.
Why it Matters
Starmer’s funding cuts to the World Food Programme are not just a fiscal issue; they reflect a broader failure to address escalating global humanitarian crises. As the world grapples with increasing levels of food insecurity, the UK’s retreat from its previous commitments raises serious ethical questions about its role on the global stage. The consequences of these decisions could be devastating, costing lives and exacerbating already dire situations in vulnerable regions. The debate surrounding this issue underscores the critical importance of prioritising humanitarian aid amidst geopolitical challenges.
