The relationship between international development assistance and regional stability has long been a subject of intense scrutiny in foreign policy circles. As a physician, I have witnessed firsthand how the presence of reliable medical and nutritional resources can stabilize vulnerable populations. However, new research suggests that the abrupt removal of such lifelines can have destabilizing consequences, directly influencing the prevalence of violence in regions that previously relied on consistent support.
A study recently published in the journal Science provides a quantitative look at how the sudden termination of USAID programs impacted conflict levels across Africa. By analyzing data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), researchers established a correlation between the rapid evaporation of aid and an immediate uptick in armed clashes, civil unrest, and attacks on noncombatants.
The core of the issue lies in the transition from a state of aid-dependency to one of sudden economic vacuum. While aid can sometimes create competition for resources, its removal appears to create a more dangerous environment where the underlying drivers of conflict—such as political grievances and resource scarcity—remain, but the economic incentives for peace are stripped away.
Refugees carry food at a distribution center run by the World Food Programme at Kakuma Refugee Camp in Turkana, Kenya. After U.S. Aid that paid for the food was curtailed, protests broke out.
Andrew Kasuku/AP
The Economic Vacuum and the Surge in Violence
Austin Wright, a data scientist at the University of Chicago and lead researcher on the study, describes the phenomenon as a “rapid collapse” of one of the most sophisticated humanitarian assistance programs in history. When funding for infrastructure, food distribution, and clinical services disappears overnight, the immediate result is a loss of local livelihoods.
“When aid is withdrawn suddenly, the economic opportunities disappear fast: wages dry up, clinics close, food programs stop,” Wright explains. “But the things worth fighting over—infrastructure, territory, political power, ethnic grievances, geopolitical tensions—don’t vanish overnight.”
A stark illustration of this dynamic occurred at the Kakuma refugee camp in northwest Kenya in July 2025. Following sharp reductions in USAID-funded food distributions, the camp’s population—numbering approximately 300,000—faced an immediate crisis. The resulting protests escalated into violence, including fires and rock-throwing, which tragically resulted in one death. Researchers identify this event as a microcosm of the broader trend observed in their data, where the withdrawal of support removed the “incentives that people might have to refrain from violence.”
Institutional Resilience: A Mitigating Factor
The study also highlights that not all regions experienced the same intensity of conflict following the aid cutoffs. Researchers identified a critical variable: the presence of strong domestic institutions. In nations where executive power is constrained by legislative bodies or robust legal frameworks, the impact of the funding withdrawal was notably dampened.
For example, when faced with funding gaps, the government of Nigeria utilized a $200 million supplementary health budget to maintain essential services, while South Africa took independent steps to secure HIV and AIDS treatment coverage. These actions suggest that countries with higher levels of institutional autonomy were better equipped to absorb the shock of the aid termination, preventing the kind of widespread civil instability seen in more vulnerable states.
Evaluating the Complexity of Conflict
While the findings are statistically significant, the study has sparked a broader conversation about the difficulty of isolating variables in humanitarian research. Andy Solow, a statistician at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who was not involved in the research, noted that while the team’s work is convincing, the nature of conflict is inherently messy.
“Conflict and the sources of conflict—it’s extremely complex,” Solow says. “I think it’s just generally speaking difficult to get a definitive answer. But you do the best you can, and I think that they did.” Solow pointed to the issue of “contagion,” where violence in one region can spill over into another, potentially complicating the link between the aid cutoff and specific violent events. However, he concluded that these technical complexities are unlikely to overturn the fundamental finding that the sudden removal of aid exacerbated regional instability.
Official Perspectives and Future Implications
The U.S. State Department has contested the framing of the research. In response to inquiries regarding the study, spokesperson Tommy Pigott stated that the report “fundamentally ignores what is actually happening in Africa.” The administration maintains that recent changes to assistance programs were intended to prioritize “efficiency, effectiveness, and partnership,” rejecting the characterization that the policy shifts directly caused the observed violence.
The long-term outlook remains concerning for researchers, primarily because of the self-reinforcing nature of regional strife. Wright emphasizes that “recent conflict is the single best predictor of future conflict.” This suggests that even if funding were to be restored at previous levels, the damage to social cohesion and the escalation of violence might not be easily reversed. The stability that was undermined during the period of withdrawal may require significant, long-term investment to rebuild, as the cycle of violence often takes on a momentum of its own.
As policymakers continue to debate the future of humanitarian assistance, the findings from this study serve as a data-driven reminder that foreign aid is more than a line item in a budget; It’s a critical component of public health and regional security. For those interested in tracking further developments, the U.S. Department of State provides ongoing updates on foreign assistance policy and international engagement.
If you or someone you know is in need of support during a crisis, please contact local emergency services or international humanitarian organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross for resources and assistance.
We welcome your thoughts on this complex issue. Please share your perspective in the comments below.
