Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has the defunding of USAID caused excess deaths
Executive Summary
The claim that USAID defunding has caused excess deaths is supported by recent impact analyses estimating large mortality reductions associated with USAID funding and projections that cuts could yield millions of additional deaths by 2030; however, other reviews and commentaries note disruptions without direct causal proof of specific excess deaths to date. Multiple studies point to strong associations between USAID programs and reduced all-cause and under-five mortality, while critiques emphasize uncertainty, modeling assumptions, and the difference between disruption and observed attributable deaths [1] [2] [3].
1. A high-impact study that frames the core claim — big numbers, bold projection
A 2025 retrospective and forecasting analysis found that higher USAID funding correlated with a 15% reduction in age-standardised all-cause mortality and a 32% reduction in under-five mortality, estimating USAID-supported programs helped avert over 91 million deaths, including 30 million child deaths, and projecting that ongoing funding cuts could produce more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030 [1]. This study is the primary source claiming causal-scale effects, using decades of program data and counterfactual projections to translate funding changes into mortality estimates. The analysis presents a strong, quantitative narrative tying funding levels to lives saved and lost.
2. Corroborating studies show consistent associations, especially for child mortality
Earlier and complementary analyses report large, consistent reductions in child mortality where USAID programs operated, including synthetic control and Bayesian-method studies that estimated differences of about 29 under-five deaths per 1,000 live births associated with US-funded interventions [4] [5]. These independent methodologies converge on the view that US global health investments materially reduced child deaths, reinforcing the plausibility of the 2025 study's larger global estimates. The body of work indicates a coherent pattern across methods and time periods linking USAID activity to better child survival.
3. Reviews and commentaries stress disruption but stop short of attributing confirmed excess deaths
Policy reviews and commentary pieces describe widespread disruption across health, nutrition, education, and humanitarian programs following budget cuts, warning of potential adverse outcomes if funding gaps persist [2] [3]. These sources emphasize programmatic risk and erosion of development-assistance architecture rather than presenting measured counts of excess deaths already realized. The distinction matters: disruptions create plausible pathways to increased mortality, but observing and attributing specific excess deaths requires time, surveillance, and causal attribution beyond early warnings.
4. Methodological trade-offs: strong models, crucial assumptions, and forecast uncertainty
The large projected death tolls rely on counterfactual modeling that extrapolates historical associations into future scenarios, which is standard for impact forecasting but sensitive to assumptions about program scale-downs, replacement funding, health system resilience, and contextual dynamics [1] [2]. Model uncertainty and the potential for mitigation by other donors or domestic responses mean projections are best read as scenario-based warnings rather than definitive counts. The literature includes robust association estimates, yet converting those into precise excess-death figures requires accepting assumptions about how cuts propagate into service gaps.
5. Alternative explanations and attribution challenges that dilute simple causal claims
Observers note that multiple factors influence mortality trends — economic changes, domestic policies, epidemics, and other donors’ actions — making singular attribution to USAID defunding difficult [2] [3]. Even where statistical associations are strong, causal attribution at the population level demands careful counterfactual control for confounders and verification via surveillance data. The commentary literature urges caution: program withdrawals can be one of several proximate causes of worsened health outcomes, and proving the counterfactual “would-have-saved” lives requires time-series evidence at national and subnational levels.
6. Policy and humanitarian implications raised by both empirical and commentary work
Both empirical projections and programmatic reviews converge on an urgent policy implication: if funding gaps are sustained, vulnerable populations face substantial elevated risk, especially children and malnourished groups [1] [6]. The studies argue for rapid mitigation — replacement financing, service continuity planning, and strengthened monitoring — to avoid the very outcomes modeled. Commentaries add that long-term erosion of development assistance infrastructure could amplify harms beyond immediate program impacts [3] [2].
7. Bottom line: strong evidence of likely harm, but measurable excess deaths remain forecast, not fully observed
The balance of evidence in these analyses indicates a plausible, model-backed pathway from USAID defunding to large numbers of excess deaths, particularly among children, with precise magnitude dependent on assumptions and mitigation actions [1]. However, existing reviews and commentaries document disruption without presenting direct, observed tallies of attributable excess deaths to date, highlighting the difference between robust forecasting and verified epidemiological attribution [2] [3]. Decision-makers should treat the projections as high-priority risk signals warranting immediate action and strengthened monitoring.