Breaking the safety net

Why cuts to US AID could intensify Europe's migrant crisis

It is hard to catch breath with the changes in the United States of America. It is also hard to understand what will likely stick. There has been a flurry of pronouncements, executive orders and interjections from the new administration. Tariffs against Mexico and Canada have perhaps already petered out. The proposed ethnic cleansing and pseudo-annexation of Gaza will probably never take shape. However, it would be wrong to assume that all of Trump’s initiatives will prove equally lacklustre. Domestic changes are more likely to take shape and will start influencing the world.

For Europe and Britain, one of the alarming ones would be the shutdown of US AID. This is already progressing, with cash cut off from programmes and staff put on leave. While Europe is not a major recipient of US aid money, it could feel many of the shockwaves that come from these decisions. The vacuum created by the withdrawal of US AID in the Near East and Africa could super-charge migrant flows, with deteriorating conditions pushing more people towards Europe’s borders. This will have significant humanitarian impacts and will renew the political challenge of migration in Europe.

Already, the prognosis for US AID looks pretty bleak. The initial executive order put almost all aid on hold for 90 days. Only a small amount of specifically exempted things are allowed to continue, with the majority frozen and new aid grants blocked. This is to purportedly await a line-by-line budget review from the new administration. Given the stated positions on aid already, it appears much will be blocked or reduced permanently.

For the world of development aid, this is a major shock. As the wealthiest nation in the world, the US is the major funder of global aid. It provides hundreds of millions of dollars to humanitarian causes every week. The whole ecosystem is built around that money flowing. Recipient governments expect it to be there to ease their social problems. Other rich countries budget for and arrange their work around it being there. In the short term, there is no one to step up for even the most important projects. Many will flounder in the next three months, as cashflow issues see them haemorrhage staff and resources.

In many cases, this could be life and death. Aid spending is never perfect, but the US does a lot of good with its money overseas. It has been a major contributor to falling global poverty and rising life expectancy. The anti-aids PEPFAR programme is credited with saving 23 million lives since 2003. Vaccine and drug rollouts have cut diseases. Literacy programmes have increased education and life chances amongst the world’s poorest, while development investment has stimulated economic activity. Now, almost everything, from mine clearance to police training, appears to be stopping overnight.

The result is likely to be instability. The most immediate impacts may be economic. These programmes employed locals and pushed money into nearby markets. Second will come the humanitarian consequences – disease flare-ups as drug stocks run out and hunger from food shortages. These will start to become self-perpetuating as diseases hamper the local economy and violence potentially erupts. The result will be terrible for people in those localities, and deaths in the developing world will be the real moral cost of these changes. From a European and British perspective, however, the most immediate consequence could well be a further surge in irregular migration.

Research indicates that aid is a useful tool in reducing short-term irregular migration. Foreign cash can provide a buffer against the destabilising influences of war, famine, and pestilence. It is probably safe to assume that the converse is true, too. The collapse of aid programmes and withdrawal of funds will precipitate crises and be a further driver of immigration. Should this happen in the wake of US AID defunding, Europe is likely to face the immediate consequences.

To start with, proximity is key. Many of these programmes will be active in the Near East and Africa, in regions where there are already considerable flows of migrants to Europe. Where the routes exist, it is easy to see how they become widened when demand picks up. The opportunity is already there. The gangs are ready, the connections are in place, and also the incentive to move where relatives and compatriots have already made the journey. An uptick in migration, especially irregular migration, is likely to be bound for Europe.

Such moves will cause further political problems for the block. Migration is already set to be the defining feature of European politics for this decade. It causes tensions both between and with EU nations, as well as in our own politics. Various elections in 2024 saw rising support for anti-migration parties, with the trend likely to continue, especially in Germany’s polls this year. At an EU level, attitudes are hardening, too, with changes mooted to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Italy’s Meloni has pursued stricter measures to secure Europe’s Mediterranean border, while Poland has hardened its boundary with Belarus in response to migrant flows.

If the withdrawal of US Aid does cause increases in migration, this is where it will be felt. Across Europe, voters are weary and wary of irregular migration, and more of it is likely to exacerbate tensions. Generally, this will empower the European right, whether that is anti-migration parties or leaders like Orban who use migration as a wedge against European unity. A further surge in migrants will likely be jumped on by these groups, especially those inspired by Trump’s victory. This will, in turn, harden the EU trajectory around migration.

Much of this will also overlap with foreign policy. Putin and Lukashenko are always willing to use migration to apply pressure on Europe’s eastern border. Increased flows will aid that, especially if they want to break the European consensus over Ukraine. Turkey may also try to exploit flows into Greece to obtain further concessions. Meanwhile, the reduction of aid in Africa and the Near East will also create opportunities for China and Russia to fill the gap and expand their influence. This could, in turn, exacerbate existing conflicts and push even greater waves of migration towards Europe.

The challenge for European policymakers will be managing this. There is little political appetite for increased levels of migration. Existing deals around returns, deportations and managing migrants will have to expand. Countries at the boundaries will become more interested in pushbacks, offshore processing, or other deals which could keep migrants away from them. The questions about how refugees are managed and dispersed around the bloc are likely to intensify.

The rest of the world is going to have to get used to “America First rapidly”. So far, many eyes have been on the foreign policy and trade consequences of Trump. Questions have abounded about the future of NATO and whether Europe will be able to take up the military slack left by an isolationist America. Debate has also looked at how Europe and Britain could affected by Trump tariffs and what concessions they might have to offer to avoid them. However, this continent will be affected by other moves from the US, too.

Both the short-term suspension and the long-term scaling back of US AID could well hit Europe with new waves of migration. America is too much of a share of global aid to be replaced and has such a presence that the rest of the system exists to cover its gaps, not supplant it. The real cost, of course, will be the human misery, disease and death which comes from the withdrawal of aid. This will likely drive other geopolitical problems, and the one Europe will most likely feel is migration. The absence of US Aid will push more people into irregular migration, most likely towards Europe.

For our politics, this will further raise the intensity and salience of the refugee issue. This could be a boon for European rights and bolster anti-migrant causes. If US aid is retreating, the EU and UK need to be aware of the consequences it could bring, both in terms of the number of migrants and what sits downstream of that politically. It is likely that the jobs of European politicians will become harder, and the continent will become more polarised on the issue. With the risk of conflict and climate change already pointing towards increased migrant flows, this could escalate an already complex prognosis. Cuts to US Aid may at first feel like an internal American matter, but the consequences could easily hit us.