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.
Which countries have been most affected by USAID funding cuts?
Executive summary
The available reporting and research point to large, rapid cuts to USAID programs in 2025 that have hit a wide set of countries and sectors; independent estimates suggest hundreds of country-level awards were terminated and that certain countries and crises (e.g., Haiti, Gaza, parts of Africa) faced particularly severe reductions (see country examples and sectoral estimates below) [1] [2] [3]. Analyses differ on scale: Center for Global Development’s country-level reanalysis and Donor Tracker work estimate broad, geographically dispersed cancellations (with a central estimate of roughly a one‑third to larger share of awards affected), while university trackers and health-modelers trace projected excess deaths tied to cuts in HIV, TB and malaria programs [4] [5] [6].
1. What the datasets and leaks show — big, dispersed country impacts
Researchers at the Center for Global Development (CGD) used leaked lists of cancelled and retained USAID awards to produce country-level estimates and find that cuts were geographically broad rather than isolated to one region; the CGD update explains the method and cautions about uncertainties in assigning dollar values to specific awards [1] [4]. Donor Tracker likewise warns that leaked spreadsheets vary in coverage and that estimates should be treated with caution, but both groups conclude the cuts were widespread and affected hundreds of awards and dozens of countries [5] [4].
2. Countries singled out in public reporting and studies
News and institutional reporting call out specific country examples where core programming was disrupted: Haiti reportedly lost roughly 80% of U.S.-funded programmes; Gaza saw termination of health and other needs-related contracts; Senegal’s malaria prevention and food assistance in Ethiopia were listed among terminated projects; South Sudan and others are named in CGD notes as affected [3] [2] [7]. These examples emerge from journalistic accounts, leaked award lists, and UN or academic statements rather than a single official country-by-country roll‑out [3] [7].
3. Health programs and projected mortality impacts — modeling and trackers
Public-health modelers at Boston University and Boston University School of Public Health have produced “impact counters” and trackers that attribute thousands — and by some tallies hundreds of thousands — of projected excess deaths to halted HIV, TB and other programs if funding is not restored; one BU product estimated more than 176,000 additional deaths from HIV alone if cuts persist through 2025, while broader counters have produced much larger aggregated death estimates [6] [3]. These are modelled projections tied to the known scale‑back of flagship programs like PEPFAR and USAID‑funded TB/malaria efforts, and they depend on assumptions about service loss and timelines [6] [3].
4. Sectoral concentration: where cuts bite hardest
Analysts note that cuts concentrated in disaster readiness, global health (PEPFAR, TB, malaria), food assistance and humanitarian programs have outsized effects because those sectors deliver life‑saving, time‑sensitive services; CGD’s sectoral work revised earlier estimates but still found major sectoral declines, and Donor Tracker highlights proposed large reductions in international program budgets [1] [5] [8]. The loss of USAID logistics, procurement, and long‑term partner relationships amplifies country-level harm even where dollar reductions are moderate [1] [7].
5. Disagreement and uncertainty in the sources — methodology matters
There is disagreement about precise dollars and rankings: leaked lists differ, the provenance of some lists is unclear, and experts caution that assigning a single dollar figure to a country award is fraught [4] [5]. CGD provides ranges (their low‑end estimate of overall cuts remained near ~34% with a wide range), and Donor Tracker stresses legal and implementation uncertainties that make precise country rankings unreliable [4] [5].
6. What is not settled or missing from reporting
Available sources do not mention a definitive, fully verified ranked list of “most affected” countries by lost USAID funding that is accepted as authoritative across analysts; instead, the picture is reconstructed from leaked award lists, CGD reanalyses, academic impact trackers and UN or country-specific reporting [1] [6] [3]. Official, consolidated country-by-country cancellation figures from a single U.S. government source are not presented in the available materials [4].
7. Bottom line for readers and policy context
Multiple independent analysts and academic groups converge on one firm conclusion: the 2025 program cancellations and budget retrenchment were extensive and hit humanitarian and health programs in many countries, with particularly alarming impacts where USAID provided a large share of service delivery (e.g., HIV/TB/malaria programs, Haiti, Gaza, parts of Africa) [6] [3] [2]. However, exact country rankings and dollar‑for‑dollar comparisons remain contested and conditional on evolving, leaked datasets and modeling assumptions [1] [4].
If you want, I can compile the CGD country‑level table and the BU impact‑tracker country pages cited above into a side‑by‑side list to show which countries repeatedly appear as highly affected across sources.