Global foreign aid is in freefall, with the world’s wealthiest nations overseeing the most severe contraction of development assistance on record. According to new data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), worldwide giving plummeted by $56.7 billion in 2025, representing a 23 per cent drop that threatens to undo decades of progress in global health and poverty reduction.
The collapse in funding was driven primarily by a dramatic retreat from the United States, which was responsible for three-quarters of the total decline. The downturn followed the shutdown of USAID as one of the initial actions of Donald Trump’s second presidency, signaling a fundamental shift in how the world’s largest economy engages with the Global South.
While the U.S. Exit dominated the figures, other major powers also tightened their purse strings. The United Kingdom saw its contributions drop by 11 per cent, France by 10.9 per cent, and Japan by 5.6 per cent. This collective withdrawal has left a precarious void in the funding of essential services, from malaria prevention to maternal health, in the world’s most vulnerable regions.
Australia has also fallen behind in this era of shrinking generosity. Ranking 25th out of 32 donor nations, Australia contributed only 0.18 per cent of its gross national income (GNI) to foreign aid—significantly lower than its neighbor New Zealand, which gave 0.27 per cent, and the UK, which provided 0.43 per cent.
A New Hierarchy of Global Giving
The U.S. Retreat has fundamentally altered the leaderboard of international aid. For the first time in real terms, Germany has emerged as the world’s top foreign aid provider. Germany’s development assistance reached $41 billion in 2025, surpassing the United States by nearly $200 million.
However, the “top” spot in total dollars masks a broader failure among wealthy nations to meet long-standing international commitments. For decades, developed countries have pledged to meet a United Nations goal of allocating 0.7 per cent of their GNI to official development assistance. In 2025, only four nations—Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, and Denmark—met this benchmark, with an average contribution of 0.26 per cent among the remaining group.
Norway remains the global gold standard for generosity, providing 1.03 per cent of its GNI. In contrast, Australia’s current commitment remains a fraction of the UN target, reflecting a trend of “below-average generosity” among the OECD’s donor members.
| Country | % of GNI Provided | Status vs UN Goal (0.7%) |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1.03% | Exceeded |
| United Kingdom | 0.43% | Below |
| New Zealand | 0.27% | Below |
| Australia | 0.18% | Below |
The Human Cost of the Funding Gap
The financial shortfall is not merely a budgetary line item; humanitarian agencies warn We see a matter of life and death. The loss of tens of billions of dollars means that preventable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, may once again surge in regions where they were previously being brought under control.
Lucia Goldsmith, head of humanitarian at Oxfam Australia, warned that the current trajectory is catastrophic. “Oxfam analysis found that global aid cuts mean a child under 5 could die every 40 seconds by 2030. If this trend continues, aid cuts could kill over 9 million people by 2030,” Goldsmith said. She added that wealthy nations are effectively “turning their backs” on millions in the Global South.
These warnings are supported by academic research. A study published by the medical journal Lancet last year suggested that a 21 per cent cut in aid would result in nearly 700,000 deaths in a single year, with cumulative losses reaching 9.4 million people by the end of the decade.
Who is most affected?
- Children under five: The most vulnerable to the cessation of vaccination and nutrition programs.
- Women in the Global South: Disproportionately affected by cuts to maternal health and reproductive services.
- Fragile States: Nations relying on USAID and UK aid for basic infrastructure and food security.
Australia’s Position and Policy
For Australia, the data presents a challenge to its regional standing and its stated goals of being a “partner of choice” in the Indo-Pacific. While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) has budgeted $5.1 billion in official development assistance for the current financial year, the increase is minimal and largely aligned with inflation, rather than reflecting a strategic increase in generosity.
Oxfam Australia argues that the global vacuum left by the United States provides an opportunity—and a moral imperative—for Australia to step up its contributions. By filling these gaps, Australia could potentially exert more diplomatic influence while saving lives through the funding of critical health interventions.
The current disparity between Australia’s 0.18 per cent GNI contribution and the 0.7 per cent UN target highlights a significant gap in policy ambition. While the government maintains its current budget, critics argue that a “inflation-only” increase is insufficient to combat the escalating crises of climate change and pandemic recovery in developing nations.
The next critical checkpoint for these figures will be the OECD’s upcoming annual review of development assistance, where the long-term impact of the 2025 cuts will be further quantified. This data will likely form the basis for renewed pressure on the Australian government to revise its GNI targets before the next budget cycle.
Do you believe Australia should increase its foreign aid to fill the gap left by the US? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
