During his Presidency, Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions often generated mixed reactions, with several of his stances on international aid stirring controversy. But perhaps one of the most concerning proposals during both his first and second terms has been his call to slash U.S. foreign aid, including aid to countries like Somalia. These proposed cuts are not just a theoretical threat—they carry with them the very real potential to destabilize regions already grappling with the consequences of war, famine, and terrorism.
The stakes are particularly high for Somalia. The Horn of Africa country has been one of the most significant recipients of U.S. aid for decades. With the country still recovering from more than 30 years of conflict, poverty, and instability, the proposed cuts could prove catastrophic for its fragile progress.
The Lifeline of U.S. Assistance to Somalia
For Somalia, the United States has long been a pillar of support, providing vital assistance across several domains: humanitarian aid, security assistance, and development programs. Each of these pillars plays a pivotal role in maintaining the tenuous stability Somalia has struggled to build in the wake of civil war, terrorism, and humanitarian disasters.
1. Humanitarian Assistance
In a country where recurrent droughts, famine, and displacement are all too common, U.S. humanitarian aid has been a lifeline. Millions of Somalis have relied on U.S. support for access to food, clean water, and life-saving medical care. The U.S. government, through agencies like USAID, has provided millions of dollars in emergency assistance to combat hunger and disease, often in response to natural disasters or conflict-induced displacement. In 2020 alone, USAID allocated over $300 million in food assistance to Somalia, helping mitigate the worst impacts of drought and famine. Without continued aid, these crises will likely worsen, leaving millions at risk of starvation.
2. Security Assistance
In terms of security, the U.S. has been instrumental in supporting Somalia’s national defense capabilities, particularly in the fight against Al-Shabaab, the terrorist group that has plagued the country for years. The U.S. has provided both financial and military support to the Somali National Army (SNA) and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), which plays a central role in stabilizing the region. In 2020, the U.S. committed $200 million to support these efforts, with the aim of strengthening Somalia’s security forces and combating the spread of terrorism. If these funds were cut, it could severely cripple Somalia’s ability to defend itself against Al-Shabaab and other extremist groups, making the region more vulnerable to instability.
3. Development Programs
U.S. funding has also been directed toward development initiatives aimed at rebuilding Somalia’s infrastructure, improving governance, and boosting economic recovery. In a country where institutions are weak, corruption is rampant, and the economy has suffered from decades of war, U.S. support for governance reforms and infrastructure projects has been indispensable. The construction of schools, hospitals, and roads, along with efforts to establish more transparent governance structures, are all funded by U.S. aid. For instance, USAID’s Economic Recovery Program has provided funding for critical infrastructure projects in Federal Member States, which are key to long-term stability. Cutting these funds would halt vital progress, leaving Somalia’s recovery efforts stalled.
Trump’s Proposed Aid Cuts: A Dangerous Departure from U.S. Policy
Donald Trump’s proposal to cut foreign aid, particularly to countries like Somalia, represents a stark departure from decades of U.S. foreign policy. The Trump administration has long advocated for slashing foreign aid budgets, arguing that much of this funding is often misused or ineffective. In 2020, the administration proposed a 21% reduction in the State Department and USAID’s budgets, with many of the cuts aimed at humanitarian and development programs in regions like Africa. While Congress pushed back on these proposals, the Trump administration’s stance has remained largely unchanged.
The reasoning behind these cuts is rooted in the “America First” policy, which prioritizes U.S. domestic needs over international commitments. The Trump administration and its allies have often argued that foreign aid should be reduced because it is perceived as wasteful, with critics claiming that it fails to achieve its intended goals and does not always directly benefit American citizens. Yet this “America First” approach overlooks the broader geopolitical and humanitarian consequences of cutting assistance to fragile states like Somalia, where U.S. aid directly supports both regional security and global stability.
The Consequences for Somalia: A Dangerous Risk
The potential consequences of cutting U.S. aid to Somalia are far-reaching and would likely exacerbate the country’s most pressing challenges. Somalia is one of the world’s most fragile states, ranking 4th on the Fragile States Index in 2020. The country remains deeply vulnerable to instability due to ongoing conflict, extremist violence, and a fragile government structure. The U.S. has been a critical partner in Somalia’s recovery, and any reduction in aid could derail progress in key areas such as security, governance, and economic development.
Humanitarian Consequences:
A reduction in U.S. humanitarian aid could lead to a sharp increase in food insecurity, particularly in the arid regions of Somalia, where droughts are frequent. This would not only result in widespread malnutrition but also deepen the already staggering humanitarian crisis, with millions of Somalis facing displacement and loss of life. The COVID-19 pandemic only added to Somalia’s vulnerabilities, with the country struggling to secure sufficient medical supplies and healthcare infrastructure. U.S. aid has been vital in combating these threats, but if funding is reduced, the impact could be devastating.
Security Implications:
U.S. assistance to Somalia’s security forces has been crucial in the fight against Al-Shabaab and other terrorist groups. The Somali government, backed by African Union peacekeepers and U.S. military support, has made significant gains in pushing back the influence of these groups. However, this progress remains fragile, and without continued U.S. support, it is likely that Al-Shabaab could regain territory, destabilizing the region further. The security implications of such a loss extend far beyond Somalia, threatening the broader Horn of Africa region and even international security interests.
Political Instability:
Somalia’s fragile political institutions are heavily supported by U.S. aid, which helps strengthen democratic processes, improve governance, and reduce corruption. A reduction in these funds could undermine progress in state-building, creating a power vacuum that may be filled by militia groups or extremist factions. The success of Somalia’s Federal Government is still tenuous, and without international assistance, the country could revert to a state of chaos.
The Broader Debate: Foreign Aid as a Tool for Stability
The proposed aid cuts have reignited the debate over the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid. Proponents of foreign assistance argue that it is a crucial tool for promoting stability, preventing conflict, and addressing the root causes of extremism and migration. In the case of Somalia, U.S. aid has not only saved lives but also strengthened Somalia’s governance and security capacity, creating a foundation for the country’s long-term recovery.
Critics of foreign aid, however, contend that it is often squandered or misdirected. They argue that countries like Somalia should take more responsibility for their own development. But this view fails to account for the unique challenges that Somalia faces—a country recovering from decades of conflict, where institutions are weak and the security situation is precarious. Cutting aid would not only harm Somalia but could destabilize the wider Horn of Africa region, creating more fertile ground for terrorism, extremism, and humanitarian disaster.
Conclusion: Why U.S. Aid to Somalia Must Continue
The case of Somalia underscores the importance of sustained international engagement, especially from key partners like the United States. Reducing or cutting aid to Somalia would not only hinder the country’s recovery but could lead to broader geopolitical and humanitarian consequences. For Somalia, the risks are simply too great.
If the United States is to maintain its global leadership role and promote stability in key regions, it must prioritize continued support for fragile states like Somalia. Cutting aid to Somalia is a dangerous gamble that could unravel the progress made over the last two decades and set the stage for even greater instability in the Horn of Africa. For the sake of regional security, global stability, and humanitarian considerations, it is imperative that the U.S. maintains, if not strengthens, its commitment to Somalia’s future.
