Britain’s overseas aid budget is set to face reductions that could exceed those implemented during the Trump administration in the United States, according to recent findings from the Center for Global Development. While Congress has resisted some of the most severe cuts proposed by President Trump, UK lawmakers appear to be moving forward with significant slashes to the nation’s global aid commitments, raising concerns about the implications for international development.
A Stark Comparison
The analysis estimates that the UK will reduce its Official Development Assistance (ODA) by approximately 27 per cent in the fiscal year 2026-27 compared to 2024-25. In contrast, US development spending is expected to decline by around 23 per cent during the same period, thanks to Congressional intervention that mitigated some of Trump’s more drastic proposals, such as dismantling the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
Ian Mitchell, co-director of the Europe programme at the Center for Global Development, highlighted the differences in political landscapes between the two nations. He stated, “In the US, the Trump administration has made dramatic changes to the US aid architecture and curbed international aid spending; but Congress has demonstrated a willingness to push back on the deepest of cuts.” In the UK, however, political resistance to the proposed aid reductions has been minimal.
The Context of Cuts
The analysis acknowledges that different methodologies are used in measuring aid across the two countries, as well as the discrepancies in their fiscal calendars. Researchers factored out specific US military support and excluded UK aid allocated for domestic asylum seeker housing, arguing that these adjustments do not alter the overarching trend.
Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy and advocacy at Bond, a UK network of aid organisations, expressed serious concerns about the implications of these cuts. He remarked, “The pace and scale of the UK’s retreat from its international development commitments are already having devastating consequences for millions of people around the world, particularly on the most marginalised groups, including women and children.” Rabinowitz also warned that these reductions could lead to the steepest decline in budgets among G7 countries, jeopardising Britain’s standing on the global stage.
Justifications for Cuts
The UK government’s decision to reduce aid from 0.5 per cent to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI) has been defended as a necessary measure to bolster defence spending in light of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. This marks a significant shift, as the last time the aid budget was below 0.3 per cent was in 1999, a period characterised by far fewer global conflicts and an estimated 600 million people suffering from chronic hunger—an alarming figure that has now risen to about 735 million.
Rabbi Noteworth, the director of policy and advocacy at Bond, insists that the UK’s aid budget should be viewed as a strategic investment. He urged the government to “urgently recommit to an ambitious international development agenda” amidst growing global instability, emphasising that such investments are crucial for preventing future pandemics and supporting fragile nations in fostering peace.
Why it Matters
The impending cuts to the UK’s foreign aid budget not only pose a threat to millions of vulnerable individuals worldwide but also risk undermining Britain’s credibility and influence on the international stage. As global challenges intensify, a reduction in aid commitments could diminish the UK’s ability to respond effectively to crises, weaken its role as a leader in international development, and harm its relationships with both allies and developing nations. The decisions made now will resonate far beyond British shores, impacting lives and livelihoods around the globe.
