Aid to countries at risk of humanitarian crisis to be cut by up to 44%

Thursday, June 18, 2026

The UK government will cut aid to several crisis-hit countries, including Ethiopia, South Sudan, and the DRC, by up to 44 percent following a reduction in its overall development assistance budget. These reductions risk worsening humanitarian emergencies and instability, potentially increasing displacement and migration pressures, as seen in other nations after similar aid cuts.

The UK government plans to reduce aid allocations to several countries facing severe humanitarian crises by up to 44 percent, officials have disclosed. The cuts will affect nations including Ethiopia, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), which are currently experiencing conflict and other emergencies such as widespread food insecurity and a significant Ebola outbreak.

This development follows the decision announced last year by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to lower the UK’s official development assistance from 0.5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to 0.3 percent, with a portion of the reallocated funds directed toward increasing defense spending. Although the Foreign Office indicated it would prioritize support for fragile states, the planned reductions suggest a shift away from comprehensive funding for many conflict-affected regions.

Nine countries on the International Rescue Committee’s list of the 20 most vulnerable to humanitarian emergencies are expected to face substantial decreases in UK aid. Both Ethiopia and South Sudan have recently been flagged for critical food security issues, while the DRC is confronting what Africa’s Centres for Disease Control and Prevention described as a potentially the worst Ebola outbreak to date.

Concerns have been raised that these funding cuts may exacerbate existing instability, potentially driving further displacement and migration pressures, including increased flows toward the UK. Sam Rushworth, a Labour member of the International Development Committee, expressed apprehension about the potential consequences for fragile states. He warned that significant aid reductions for unprotected conflict-affected countries risk repeating the effects seen in the United States, where previous aid withdrawals from conflict zones corresponded with spikes in violence, civilian harm, and refugee flows. Rushworth characterized such outcomes as illustrating the “false economy” of cutting foreign aid.

Observers note that the United States’ experience with aid cuts to conflict areas resulted in escalated violence, a trend documented in recent academic research. Against this backdrop, critics of the UK’s decision emphasize the need to balance fiscal priorities with the potential humanitarian and security costs associated with decreased international development assistance in fragile contexts.