The UK government has revealed a significant reduction in its overseas development aid, with a 56% cut to bilateral aid to African countries by 2028-29, according to a report by The Guardian. This move comes as part of a broader £6bn reduction in aid spending, which is intended to fund an increase in defense spending. The cuts have sparked concern among aid agencies and MPs, who argue that the decision risks leaving the UK’s reputation in tatters and creating a more unstable world.

Impact on the World’s Poorest Countries

The reduction in aid will affect some of the world’s poorest countries, including Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Mozambique, and Pakistan, where development assistance will be significantly cut. These countries will see their aid replaced by partnerships focused on investment, rather than direct financial support. Yvette Cooper. The foreign secretary. Stated that while these countries will still receive funding from multinational aid agencies, the shift in funding priorities will have a direct impact on their development.

According to the report. The UK’s bilateral aid to African countries will be reduced by almost £900m by 2028-29. This represents a sharp decline from the £818m spent in 2026, with the aid being redirected towards multilateral contributions through the World Bank and African Development Bank. The Foreign. Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said this shift is part of a broader strategy to prioritize geopolitical security and conflict zones, particularly in Palestine, Sudan, and Ukraine.

Among the most affected countries are Mozambique and Pakistan, where almost all development aid will be cut. The FCDO has stated that these nations have expressed a preference for expertise partnerships with the UK, focusing on building stable financial systems and clean energy, rather than traditional aid programs. Development minister Jenny Chapman emphasized that the decision was made in collaboration with global south partners and was not a shift in values, but a reorientation of aid spending.

Humanitarian and Development Concerns

The cuts will have a significant impact on humanitarian and development efforts across Africa and the Middle East. According to Bond. The UK network for NGOs. The most vulnerable populations—children, people with disabilities, and older people—will be hit hardest in countries such as Ethiopia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia; the cuts will also reduce access to education for girls and children with disabilities in South Sudan.

In Somalia. One of the world’s most unstable countries, aid reductions are expected to severely affect access to health services for women and children. Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, said that the cuts will force countries in Africa and the Middle East, which are home to some of the world’s least-developed nations, to pay the highest price.

The crisis reserve for humanitarian emergencies has also been reduced, from £85m to £75m. Cooper described this as a difficult choice in the face of international threats, but critics argue that the cuts undermine the UK’s ability to respond effectively to global crises.

Adrian Lovett, UK executive director of the ONE Campaign, warned that the cuts will leave millions without access to basic healthcare, education, and urgent humanitarian support. He emphasized that the reduction in aid to Africa, where the need is greatest, will have a devastating impact and risk a resurgence of deadly diseases that the UK has worked hard to combat over the past decades.

Political and Strategic Considerations

The decision to cut aid has been justified by the government as a necessary step in response to a more dangerous world, with increased defense spending aimed at addressing international threats. However, some Labour MPs have expressed skepticism, arguing that the cuts are not effectively bolstering military preparedness, given the delays in the defense investment plan and the demands for additional funding from military leaders.

Fleur Anderson, the MP for Putney, criticized the government for increasing defense spending while cutting development programs that help build stability and prevent crises. She argued that a serious approach to global security must include development spending and that the current strategy risks waiting for crises rather than preventing them.

Cooper acknowledged that the decision was difficult but stressed that the UK would remain the fifth-largest funder of international aid. She also mentioned that the government is committed to gradually returning to the 0.7% of GNI aid target when possible. The FCDO has ringfenced £240m a year until 2029 and has protected allocations for Palestine and Lebanon, with the latter aimed at reducing the drivers of irregular migration.

The cost of housing asylum seekers in UK hotels—estimated at £2bn annually—is being drawn from the aid budget. This has led to a situation where by 2027-28, aid spending on overseas programs is expected to reach its lowest level since records began in 1970, at just 0.24% of gross national income.

The cuts will also end aid to major funders such as the polio eradication program and the Pandemic Fund. The FCDO has stated that the changes will prioritize funding for conflict zones, multilateral agencies like Gavi, and organizations such as the British Council and the BBC World Service. However, the long-term implications of these cuts remain uncertain, and the impact on the world’s poorest countries is likely to be significant.