New figures from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have confirmed that the world’s poorest countries bore the brunt of British aid reductions under Keir Starmer’s government, as the UK’s overall development budget shrank by nearly a billion pounds.
The data, released this week, shows a 6.7% fall in funding to least-developed and low-income nations — equivalent to £118m in real terms. At the same time, wealthier middle-income countries actually saw their share of Britain’s aid budget rise, widening an already glaring inequality in how the UK distributes its limited development resources.
The UK’s total Official Development Assistance spending dropped to 0.44% of gross national income in 2025, down from 0.5% the previous year — a reduction of £987m. Starmer has argued the savings will fund increased defence spending, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from humanitarian leaders who warn the consequences will be devastating for millions of vulnerable people.
The Human Cost of Reduced Funding
Charity network Bond has described the disproportionate impact on the poorest nations as “shocking,” with its director of policy and advocacy, Gideon Rabinowitz, warning that critical life-saving programmes are already being shuttered across the globe.
From maternal health provision in Sierra Leone to education for children with disabilities throughout Africa, the effects are already tangible. Marginalised communities — particularly those in climate-vulnerable regions and areas scarred by conflict — are paying the heaviest price for these policy decisions, Rabinowitz said.
The UK’s aid spending on in-country costs for asylum seekers accounted for the single largest share at 18.4%, though even this was a reduction from 20% in 2024. Meanwhile, lower-middle-income countries saw their allocation increase by 13%, and upper-middle-income countries benefited from a 2% rise — a trend that has alarmed development professionals who argue that need, not economic classification alone, should dictate where aid is spent.
Afghanistan and Yemen Face Steep Future Cuts
The top three recipients of UK aid were Ukraine, Yemen and Afghanistan. However, while funding to Ukraine remains ringfenced, the outlook for the other two nations is dire. Without additional intervention, Yemen is projected to see a 28% reduction in aid by 2028/29, and Afghanistan a staggering 39% cut over the same period.
These reductions come at a time when both countries are grappling with severe humanitarian crises. Afghanistan, under Taliban governance, has seen women and girls largely barred from public life, with food insecurity reaching alarming levels. Yemen continues to endure one of the world’s worst humanitarian emergencies, compounded by armed conflict and economic collapse.
Experts have cautioned that the UK’s cuts, alongside similar reductions by the United States and European nations, are compelling aid agencies to abandon anything beyond immediate life-saving support. The long-term implications of that triage approach, they warn, could prove catastrophic.
A System Under Strain
A report published earlier this month by the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (Alnap) painted a bleak picture of the global aid landscape. Its findings revealed that 64 million fewer people received assistance last year as a direct consequence of funding cuts — a staggering decline with far-reaching consequences.
Jennifer Doherty, co-author of the Alnap report, said the cumulative reductions had contributed to the largest funding gap ever recorded within the humanitarian system, forcing increasingly impossible choices about who receives help and who does not.
“The longer-term consequences will depend not only on future decisions by donor governments, but also on how crisis-affected governments and other local and regional support systems adjust their own policies and approaches in response to reduced external assistance,” Doherty added. “Where those systems are unable to absorb the shock, there is a risk that more people will be left without support.”
That warning underscores a growing concern among development professionals: that aid cuts do not simply reduce the volume of help available, but can destabilise entire systems of support that communities rely on for survival.
What Comes Next for UK Aid?
Bond is now urging the new prime minister, Andy Burnham, to reconsider the cuts introduced by his predecessor and to restore the UK’s commitment to meaningful development spending.
“What little remains of the UK aid budget must go where it is most needed,” Rabinowitz said. “That means contributing to the reduction of poverty and inequality — particularly in fragile and conflict-affected countries, where humanitarian needs are most acute.”
The question now is whether the new government will treat these figures as a wake-up call or allow the trend of decline to continue. With global conflicts intensifying and climate change displacing ever larger populations, the pressure on Britain’s aid programme has never been greater.
Why it Matters
The UK’s aid budget is one of the few levers of global influence remaining available to government, and its contraction carries consequences far beyond British borders. When funding to the poorest nations is slashed, it is not simply an accounting decision — it is a choice about whose lives are worth protecting. Maternal mortality rises, children lose access to schooling, and health systems that depend on external support begin to crumble. The 64 million fewer people receiving aid represents not just a statistical decline but a vast human toll. As global instability deepens, the case for a robust and strategically targeted aid programme has never been stronger. Whether the UK chooses to lead or retreat will shape the lives of millions for years to come.
