What evidence links USAID funding levels to outcomes like child mortality, maternal deaths, and disease control?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple recent analyses and news investigations link USAID funding to large reductions in child and adult mortality: a Lancet study estimates USAID investments averted about 91.8 million deaths over 21 years and associates higher USAID funding with a 15% reduction in age‑standardized all‑cause mortality and a 32% reduction in under‑five deaths (RR 0.85 and 0.68) [1]. Forecasting models in that study and related academic and university summaries project that the defunding actions in early 2025 could produce more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including roughly 4.5 million children under five [2] [3].
1. Big‑picture evidence: cross‑country statistical association
A multinational retrospective evaluation published in The Lancet and summarized on PubMed reports that countries receiving higher levels of USAID funding—especially low‑ and middle‑income countries in Africa—show statistically significant reductions in mortality: 15% lower age‑standardized all‑cause deaths and 32% lower under‑five mortality; the authors estimate USAID averted roughly 91.8 million deaths from 2000–2021, including about 30.4 million children under five [1] [4].
2. How the studies link funding to specific causes (HIV, malaria, NTDs, MCH)
The Lancet analysis and accompanying coverage break down effects by disease area: the largest modeled impacts were reductions in HIV/AIDS, malaria and neglected tropical diseases, with additional statistically significant declines in tuberculosis, nutritional deficiencies, diarrhoeal diseases, maternal and perinatal conditions, and lower respiratory infections [5] [4]. Other observers note USAID historically funded programs across maternal and child health, nutrition, family planning and immunization that plausibly drive those cause‑specific effects [6] [7].
3. Forecasting the counterfactual: projected deaths from defunding
Researchers used microsimulation and country‑level projection models to estimate outcomes under two scenarios (continued 2023 funding vs. abrupt 2025 cuts). Those forecasts indicate that if the 2025 cuts persist, more than 14.1 million excess deaths could occur by 2030—about 4.5 million of them children under five—figures repeated in university press releases and media summaries [2] [3] [8].
4. On-the-ground reporting and plausibility: immediate program collapse and excess deaths
Investigative news reporting from AP and PBS documents program closures, overwhelmed malnutrition clinics and individual child deaths following rapid contract cancellations and pauses in aid, offering real‑world examples that align with the modelers’ assumptions that service interruptions translate to increased mortality [9] [10]. University tracking projects and public health researchers also published shorter‑term excess‑death tallies for specific diseases like HIV using real‑time dashboards [11].
5. Methods and limitations the authors and critics acknowledge
The Lancet team combined retrospective cohort modelling with forecasting; commentators and the journal itself warn that some impacts may be underestimated because abrupt funding shocks damage health systems in ways not fully captured (for example, workforce losses or service disruption leading to cascades) [8]. Media coverage and independent experts note data limits—death registration and cause attribution are imperfect in many low‑resource settings—adding uncertainty to point estimates [5] [1].
6. Alternative viewpoints and political context
The administration responsible for the cuts framed the move as aligning aid with national interests; some officials argued that program transfers to the State Department or reorganization might preserve priorities (noted in reporting and government documents), but independent analyses and watchdogs report large percentages of canceled awards and program suspensions that contradict claims of uninterrupted service [12] [3] [13]. Commentators at Oxfam and NGOs emphasize long‑term USAID contributions to maternal and child health gains since 1990, reinforcing the interpretation that cuts risk reversing progress [14].
7. What this evidence does — and doesn’t — prove
Available sources show robust associations between higher USAID funding and lower mortality and provide model‑based projections estimating large excess deaths if funding remains cut [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention randomized controlled trials that isolate USAID funding as the sole causal agent across countries; instead, the evidence rests on observational cross‑country analysis, historical program evaluations, disease‑specific models and contemporaneous reporting of program shutdowns [1] [5].
8. Takeaway for policymakers and the public
Multiple peer‑reviewed analyses, university summaries and investigative reports converge: sustained USAID funding has been associated with major reductions in child and adult mortality, and abrupt large cuts in 2025 plausibly and predictably risk substantial excess deaths—estimates cluster around 14 million by 2030 if cuts persist, with immediate examples of increased malnutrition‑related deaths reported on the ground [1] [2] [9]. Limitations in data and modeling are acknowledged by authors, and alternative administrative explanations for restructuring are documented in government reporting [8] [12].