Global aid funding is decreasing as nations shift focus from humanitarian help to geopolitical and strategic interests.
🔗 Read the article on ilfattoquotidiano.it
[This is an automatically generated summary, for reference only]
The dismantling of US aid programs under the Trump administration significantly impacted global non-profit organizations by reducing available funding and forcing budget realignments, particularly for vulnerable regions. While the European Union could have taken a leading role in humanitarian aid to boost its soft power, member states are instead cutting foreign aid while increasing defense spending. Data shows a general reduction in Official Development Assistance (ODA) among top donors; France plans a 35% cut by 2025, Germany reduced its main development expenditure in 2024 and plans further cuts for 2025, and Belgium has cut funding by 25% over five years. Italy is redirecting funds towards geopolitical objectives, primarily migration control, guided by the Mattei Plan. Across Europe, Switzerland is reducing external aid budgets, the UK is lowering its ODA percentage of GDP to fund defense, and Sweden announced a major development funding cut for several countries in late 2025. The EU itself has announced cuts to its Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (Ndici) and is considering a 35% reduction in its overall development aid budget. Furthermore, the EU’s strategy is shifting towards initiatives like the Global Gateway, which prioritizes infrastructure investments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to enhance strategic autonomy, moving from a focus on people-centered cooperation to one driven by mutual interests related to critical resources and digital/energy transitions. Critics argue this shift represents a move from cooperation to competition, with concerns that environmental and human rights impacts are being overlooked, and civil society participation is not sufficiently strengthened. Additionally, merging various aid funds risks sidelining poverty reduction goals in favor of geopolitical security considerations, potentially eroding the predictability historically offered by EU funding. Furthermore, parliamentary criticism targets the Global Gateway for being too centralized and lacking transparency, demanding greater inclusion of civil society and local authorities in project decisions.
