10 African countries most exposed to Trump's health aid cuts
Several African countries are critically vulnerable due to reduced U.S. foreign assistance, particularly from cuts to USAID programs.
For some nations like Somalia and South Sudan, U.S. health aid constitutes over 200% of their government health spending, making them heavily reliant.
Cuts to U.S. health aid threaten African public health progress and may lead to global health risks due to weakened disease surveillance capabilities.
Newly released data shows how heavily African health systems rely on U.S. aid, raising serious concerns about the impact of abrupt funding cuts on public health across the continent.
According to the Center for Global Development, the United States has been a central player in supporting global health supply chains, particularly through the Global Health Supply Chain – Procurement and Supply Management (GHSC-PSM) project.
In 2024 alone, the project supported 73 countries and disbursed $1.15 billion in donated health commodities and technical assistance.
The majority of the funding focused on HIV (71.1%), followed by malaria (20.3%), family planning (7%), and maternal, neonatal, and child health (1.5%).
In nine countries, this aid accounted for more than 10% of total government health spending, levels that are difficult to replace with domestic resources.
Trump's freeze on $72 billion in U.S. foreign aid spending led to the suspension of hundreds of development projects in over 200 countries and territories, affecting nearly 10,000 USAID personnel.
In total, the administration terminated 5,341 projects worth $75 billion and initiated a sharp reduction in USAID staffing, signaling a dramatic shift in America's approach to global development.
For Africa, where U.S. aid often supports core health services, these actions threaten to reverse years of progress in disease control, maternal health, and emergency preparedness, while exposing millions to increased health risks.
African nations most hit by US health aid cuts
Recent data sourced from Business Daily Africa shows that countries like Somalia, South Sudan, and Malawi are among the most at risk, with U.S. health aid making up 237%, 235%, and 207% of their government health spending, respectively.
The chart below ranks the top 10 African countries most vulnerable to Trump's health aid cuts, based on U.S. health aid as a percentage of government health spending:
In over 20 African countries, U.S. assistance forms a vital share of national health budgets. For nations like Uganda, Liberia, and Mozambique, it covers more than 80% of health spending, supporting key services such as HIV/AIDS treatment, immunizations, and maternal care.
The impact would be especially severe in fragile states like Somalia and South Sudan, where local systems cannot absorb such a shock. In these countries, U.S. aid underpins essential services, and its loss could trigger a collapse in healthcare delivery and a rise in preventable diseases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
12 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Rural hospitals brace for crisis as GOP bill slashes Medicaid funding
Rural hospitals in the U.S. already operate on a razor's edge, but new cuts to Medicaid in the Republican appropriations bill could tip many of them into failure. The Republican megabill that the House just passed in a 218-214 vote is a massive piece of kitchen sink legislation, extending Trump's tax cuts and allocating hundreds of billions for immigration enforcement, among the president's priorities. To pay for all of that spending, the bill will slash programs that make up the federal safety net by the largest amount in decades, mostly through major cuts to Medicaid. Medicaid is the joint federal and state health insurance program that millions of low-income Americans rely on for healthcare coverage. As of March of this year, 71 million people in the U.S. were enrolled in Medicaid, which also extends coverage for pregnant people, elderly adults, and Americans with disabilities. An estimate from the Congressional Budget Office expects about 12 million people will lose their Medicaid coverage under the legislation. Among its major changes, the bill would cut $1 trillion in funding from Medicaid over the next decade and add new eligibility restrictions that require able-bodied adults up to age 65 to work 80 hours per month to qualify. Older Americans between ages 50 and 64 could be hit hardest by the new work requirements, according to analysis from the UC Berkeley Labor Center. That set of aging adults is too young to be eligible for Medicare but face the challenge of juggling work with chronic illness and disability, two factors that contribute to plunging employment numbers after age 50. Rural hospitals hit hardest Beyond shrinking the number of Americans covered by Medicaid, the bill would also place a cap and a gradual set of reductions on the taxes that states charge health providers to pay for their share of Medicaid. Those taxes are a big piece of what makes the system work, and any changes risk destabilizing an already fragile healthcare system. Limits to state reimbursements are anticipated to further imperil hospital and clinic funding, particularly in rural areas where a larger share of the population relies on Medicaid. In those areas, an increased number of people without healthcare coverage and preventive care also means more patients showing up in emergency rooms. 'In Nebraska, nearly half of our rural hospitals are currently operating in the red,' Nebraska Hospital Association president Jeremy Nordquist said. 'This change would pull the rug out from under them, leading to a loss of critical patient services and putting the health of our communities at risk.' On Tuesday, Senate Republicans added more funding for rural hospitals to compensate for funding losses after a push from Maine Sen. Susan Collins, whose state stands to be slammed by the cuts due to a large rural population that relies on Medicaid. An earlier version of the bill allocated $25 billion to rural hospitals over five years, a number that was doubled to $50 billion in the final version. Whether the $50 billion fund will be enough to offset a rural healthcare crisis is about to become a live social experiment with steep stakes. At least one hospital that's closing its doors in the state is already blaming Trump's signature legislation. Nebraska's Community Hospital just announced the closure of a clinic in the rural southwest Nebraska town of Curtis, which serves 900 people locally. 'Unfortunately, the current financial environment, driven by anticipated federal budget cuts to Medicaid, has made it impossible for us to continue operating all of our services, many of which have faced significant financial challenges for years,' Community Hospital CEO Troy Bruntz said. Over a million could lose coverage According to the National Rural Health Association, the bill is expected to reduce Medicaid funding for rural hospitals by 21% while leaving more than a million rural residents without coverage. 'While the Senate Finance committee proposal has made some cuts deeper than the House-passed bill, both are certain to lead to more hospital closures and reduced access to care for rural residents, exacerbating economic hardship in communities where hospitals are major employers,' the association wrote in a report exploring the rural impacts of the bill. An analysis by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that hospitals would be down $321 billion over the next decade if changes in the less severe House version of the bill went into effect. On top of that, hospitals could be hit with $63 billion in additional costs from handling a larger base of uninsured patients, including those seeking emergency services. The cuts to Medicaid are controversial, even among some of the lawmakers that ultimately supported the bill, which the Senate approved on Tuesday. 'Do I like this bill? No,' said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who cast a decisive vote for the legislation after securing special carve-outs for her state. 'I know that in many parts of the country, there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries attempted to push back Republicans' self-imposed July 4 deadline by filibustering the massive legislative package, speaking on the House floor for eight hours and 44 minutes. With Jeffries' record-setting critique wrapped up, Democrats could no longer delay the inevitable vote on Trump's so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which passed the House on Thursday afternoon.
Forbes
13 minutes ago
- Forbes
Medicaid Cuts Could Take Effect In 2026, Experts Say
The House voted to pass President Donald Trump's megabill Thursday, which cuts more than $1 trillion in Medicaid and federally funded health care programs over the next 10 years, and is now heading to Trump's desk—meaning states and recipients could start seeing real changes or funding cuts as soon as next year, experts say. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., arrives as House Republicans work to pass President ... More Donald Trump's signature bill of tax breaks and spending cuts by a self-imposed Fourth of July deadline, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, July 2, 2025. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved The bill would limit how states fund Medicaid programs, including a phased reduction in provider taxes starting 2026, and the introduction of work requirements which would take effect in 2027—changes experts say could force states to cut services, reduce enrollment or find new funding within the next few years. Leah Rosenstiel, an assistant professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, told Forbes the bill won't implement all its Medicaid changes at once, but said some states could be forced to rethink their Medicaid financing strategies almost immediately. Rosenstiel said the existing 6% limit on taxes that states can impose on health care providers—which is how they raise revenue and pay for federal reimbursement—would phase down to 3.5% by 2032, with states losing more money for Medicaid. Leighton Ku, a health policy and management professor at George Washington University, told Forbes the Medicaid provisions—including work requirements for Medicaid expansion states—are expected to begin by 2027, with coverage losses 'really hitting home' in 2028 and 2029. Some states—like Alaska, which doesn't use provider taxes—would see little immediate change, where others that lean heavily on provider tax revenue could be forced to cut Medicaid services or find alternative sources of funding within the next year or two, according to Rosentiel and Ku. The most immediate impact on Medicaid would be changes to provider taxes, which would also change the way states work with health care providers to help finance their Medicaid programs, according to Ku. He told Forbes, 'Some of those changes are supposed to go into effect as soon as legislation is passed' and that 'We would begin to see some changes in the next year, in 2026.' Ku also said work requirements for Medicaid expansion states would follow suit in 2027. The bill would cut Affordable Care Act marketplaces, leaving nearly 12 million Americans without health insurance by 2034, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. What Can States Do To Protect Medicaid Funding? Rosenstiel told Forbes states have always had 'a lot of flexibility when it comes to Medicaid,' and that wouldn't change under Trump's bill. 'If a state government wanted to reduce spending on roads and put that money toward Medicaid, they're free to do that. States can also, of course, choose to adopt Medicaid expansion or choose to not adopt Medicaid expansion,' Rosenstiel said. She said the majority of states will have to make changes to their provider taxes if the bill were enacted. 'Medicaid is so much money, and the states receive so much money from the federal government for Medicaid—I would be really surprised if state leaders weren't already at least starting to think about what they would want to do even if some changes don't go into effect until a year or two from now,' she said. House Passes Trump's Signature Spending Bill, Meeting July 4 Deadline (Forbes) Trump's Policy Megabill Cuts More Than $1 Trillion From Medicaid: Here's How (Forbes)
New York Times
29 minutes ago
- New York Times
Drugmakers Notch a $5 Billion Win in Republicans' Policy Bill
The sweeping Republican policy bill that awaits President Trump's signature on Friday includes a little-noticed victory for the drug industry. The legislation allows more medications to be exempt from Medicare's price negotiation program, which was created to lower the government's drug spending. Now, manufacturers will be able to keep those prices higher. The change will cut into the government's savings from the negotiation program by nearly $5 billion over a decade, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'This is essentially giving $5 billion back to the pharmaceutical industry,' said Dr. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. 'It's done in a way that is designed, on its face, to solve the problem of some misaligned incentives, but I don't think it solves those problems.' Under existing law, costly drugs are exempt from price negotiations if they are approved to treat a single rare disease — one that affects fewer than 200,000 Americans. Drugmakers have complained that this policy discourages them from running studies and seeking approval to treat a second rare disease, and that it ultimately deprives patients of new treatments. In response, the new bill spares drugs that are approved to treat multiple rare diseases. They can still be subject to price negotiations later if they are approved for larger groups of patients, though the change delays those lower prices. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
