Sudden USAID Cuts Fueled Rising Conflict Across Africa, New Study Finds

Less than a week after taking office, the second Trump administration issued a blanket stop-work order for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), abruptly halting work by an organization that was at the time one of the world’s largest humanitarian donors.

The amount of aid provided throughout more than 100 countries, including many African ones, was substantial: from 2017 to 2020, USAID provided over $2.3 billion in aid related to education, health, water, or reproductive aid over the course of 4,499 discrete projects; over $1.5 billion in humanitarian aid over the course of 1,930 projects (related to food aid or emergency response); more than half a billion dollars in 1,609 economic development projects; and much more.

A new study coauthored by Harris Public Policy Associate Professor Austin Wright finds that the consequences of the USAID cut-off were not only humanitarian and economic, but also led to conflict: conflict rose sharply in the African regions that had previously relied most heavily on USAID support—an increase of 12.3%.

The paper, “Aiding Peace or Conflict?: The impact of USAID cuts on violence,” provides some of the earliest evidence on how sudden large-scale aid withdrawal affects conflict. Using data from 870 subnational regions across Africa from March 2024 to November 2025, the researchers compared areas with different levels of historical USAID exposure before and after the January 2025 shutdown.

Their conclusion is striking: after the cuts, regions that had received higher levels of USAID support saw significant increases in conflict. The rise was visible across several measures, including overall conflict events, battles, protests and riots, and battle-related deaths. Areas with high historical USAID exposure experienced an approximately 12.3 percent increase in total conflict events, a 7.3 percent increase in battles, and a 6.8 percent increase in protests and riots.

“What surprised us was not only the magnitude of the increase, but how quickly conflict patterns changed after the shutdown,” said Wright. “The findings suggest that abrupt aid withdrawals can create immediate instability in places where assistance had become deeply embedded in everyday economic and social life.”

The study found that the effects appeared quickly indeed. Regions more exposed to USAID did not show different conflict trends in the 11 months before the cuts, but after the shutdown they experienced an immediate increase in conflict. Protests and riots responded most quickly, while the effects on battles and violence against civilians intensified over time.

The findings enter a long-running debate over whether foreign aid reduces conflict by improving economic conditions or fuels conflict by creating resources that groups fight to control. The authors argue that a sudden withdrawal is not simply the mirror image of an aid increase. When aid disappears abruptly, the economic safety net can collapse quickly, reducing the opportunity cost of joining conflict. In that setting, conflict can surge. And in this case, it did.

The paper also finds that institutions matter. Countries with stronger constraints on executive power saw smaller conflict effects, suggesting that inclusive and resilient local institutions can help buffer societies from sudden humanitarian and economic shocks.

The study does not measure the precise mechanisms behind each violent event, nor does it assess the overall long-term efficiency or welfare effects of U.S. aid. The analysis focuses on Africa, where USAID has been especially important in health, food security, and basic service delivery. Still, the study suggests that the sudden and largely unexpected withdrawal of USAID was exceptional, not only in scale and speed, but in its measurable consequences for stability.

As other donors consider reducing aid, the authors warn that the estimated effects of the USAID shutdown may represent only a lower bound of the longer-term consequences. Recent conflict is one of the strongest predictors of future conflict, raising the risk that short-term shocks may push vulnerable regions into deeper cycles of instability.

“Conflict is rarely a one-off event,” Wright said. “Once violence increases in fragile settings, it can reshape local politics, deepen economic insecurity, and make future violence more likely. That’s why short-term shocks can carry consequences long after the original policy decision.”