UK slashes overseas aid in record cuts – who pays the price?

Britain’s reputation as a global humanitarian leader is taking a severe hit as Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced the most significant cut to the UK’s overseas aid budget in history. To fund an increase in defence spending, the UK’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) will drop from 0.5% to 0.3% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2027 – a staggering reduction of approximately £6 billion per year.

With this decision, the UK is poised to spend the lowest proportion of national income on international aid since records began in 1960. The consequences? Devastating. For millions of vulnerable people around the world, this move is not just a statistic – it’s a matter of life and death.

Why Is the UK Slashing Aid?

The official reasoning behind the cuts is national security. Starmer argues that increasing the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP is necessary to counteract global threats, particularly with rising tensions in Ukraine and the perceived aggression from Russia. However, critics argue that this “ guns over butter ” approach ignores the fundamental role that humanitarian aid plays in global stability.

Charities and NGOs have slammed the decision, accusing the government of creating a false choice between defence and humanitarian work. Bond, a coalition of UK aid groups, called it “reckless,” while WaterAid described it as a “ cruel betrayal of people living in poverty globally .”

David Miliband, the former foreign secretary and now head of the International Rescue Committee, said, “ This move is a blow to Britain’s proud reputation as a global humanitarian and development leader. The global consequences will be far-reaching and devastating for people who need more help, not less. ”

Who Will Suffer the Most?

Women and Girls in Crisis Zones

Experts warn that women and girls will be disproportionately affected, particularly in regions where UK-funded programmes support education, healthcare, and reproductive rights. Many fear that essential services for survivors of gender-based violence, child marriage prevention, and maternal health will be axed.

Dr. Alvaro Bermejo, director general of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, stated, “ This will cost lives. Women and girls in the world’s most vulnerable regions will be left without essential healthcare and support .”

War-Torn Regions Like Yemen, Sudan, and Syria

Countries already suffering from devastating conflicts rely heavily on UK aid. In 2023, the UK contributed significant funds to Yemen and Sudan. With these cuts, food assistance, medical aid, and refugee support in these areas could dwindle, exacerbating existing humanitarian disasters.

An official from the aid sector remarked, “ With the amount committed to refugees in the UK, and now this cut, there will be almost nothing left. It’s an absolute mess.”

Health Programmes in Africa and Beyond

UK aid has historically funded vaccine programs and global health initiatives such as Gavi and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. A sharp reduction in funding could mean fewer vaccinations for children and a resurgence of preventable diseases.

Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, warned, “ Slashing the already diminished UK aid budget to fund an uplift in defence is a reckless decision. It will leave millions without access to life-saving healthcare .”

Climate Crisis Response

The UK has been a major player in climate finance, helping developing nations combat climate change. With the new budget constraints, critical initiatives to address flooding, droughts, and rising sea levels in vulnerable nations could be put on hold.

Jean-Michel Grand, director of Action Against Hunger UK, commented, “ Aid is now being discussed in terms of trade, prosperity, and security, with poverty reduction becoming secondary. It’s deeply concerning .”

UK’s Own Global Influence

The UK has long used international aid as a form of soft power to maintain influence in developing countries. With China increasing its global aid presence, there are fears that Beijing will step in where the UK retreats, shifting geopolitical influence in its favour.

An anonymous Labour MP voiced concerns, saying, “Cutting this financial lifeline will make the world more unsafe, as people in crisis will have no choice but to migrate. ”

The Fallout – A ‘Domino Effect’ of Aid Cuts?

The UK is not alone in cutting back aid. The US, under Trump’s leadership, drastically reduced funding for USAID, leading to severe disruptions in global humanitarian efforts. European nations like Germany, France, and the Netherlands are also reducing their commitments.

Aid organisations warn that this pattern could trigger a catastrophic “ domino effect .” With fewer resources for crisis-hit regions, instability could worsen, leading to more forced migration and greater security threats – ironically undermining the very national security concerns that the UK claims to prioritise.

Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, condemned the move, saying, “ To appease Trump, Starmer will cut aid to its lowest level in a generation. It is a day of shame for Britain. ”

What Happens Next?

While the government insists the most “vital” humanitarian programmes will remain funded, the reality is that many lifesaving projects will be slashed. Humanitarian groups are calling for urgent parliamentary debates and demanding transparency on how the remaining aid budget will be allocated.

The backlash from charities, political opponents, and even members of Starmer’s own Labour Party is growing. Former foreign secretary David Miliband condemned the move as “ a blow to Britain’s proud reputation .” Meanwhile, development minister Anneliese Dodds resigned in protest, saying it is now “impossible” to honour commitments to Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine under the new budget.

Care International UK’s chief executive, Helen McEachern, stated, “ Not only does this decision do irreparable harm to his government’s reputation, but it also ignores the vital role aid plays in making the UK and our world safer, healthier, and more sustainable for everyone .”

At a time when the world faces unprecedented humanitarian crises, Britain has chosen to retreat. The repercussions of this decision will be felt for years, with millions left more vulnerable and global instability potentially worsening.

The UK has long prided itself on being a force for good in international development. But with this historic cut, is Britain stepping away from its moral and strategic responsibilities? And if so, at what cost?