Why USAID suspension opens doors for countries like Uganda to seek other partners

By Kungu Al-Mahamadi Adam

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order suspending all U.S. foreign aid for a 90-day review, effectively halting funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

This sweeping decision has reverberated globally, with Africa—particularly Uganda—bearing the brunt of its immediate consequences. For decades, USAID has been a cornerstone of U.S. soft power, channeling billions of dollars into health, human rights, and development programs in countries like Uganda.

The abrupt suspension of these funds has not only destabilized critical sectors but also exposed the fragility of U.S. partnership, raising questions about its reliability as a global ally. As Uganda grapples with the fallout, the vacuum left by this withdrawal presents an opportunity for nations like Russia and China to expand their influence, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape in Africa.

Uganda has long been a significant recipient of USAID funding, particularly in health and human rights. In fiscal year 2023, USAID managed over $40 billion globally, with Sub-Saharan Africa receiving more than $6.5 billion in humanitarian assistance alone.

Uganda, a key beneficiary, has relied heavily on these funds to combat HIV/AIDS, Ebola, and malnutrition, as well as to support democratic governance and human rights initiatives.

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), administered through USAID, has been a flagship program, providing antiretroviral treatment to nearly 1.4 million Ugandans and funding HIV testing and prevention efforts for millions more. Beyond health, USAID has supported civil society organizations advocating for marginalized groups, including women and the LGBTQ+ community, in a country where such rights are often under threat.

The suspension of USAID funds has thrown these programs into chaos. Within days of the executive order, stop-work orders were issued to contractors and NGOs, halting the distribution of life-saving medicines and services.

Clinics funded by PEPFAR have reported locked doors and dwindling supplies, with one Ugandan organization warning it could exhaust HIV testing kits, TB medicines, and condoms within a month.

Civil society groups, such as those represented by HEPS Uganda, have sounded the alarm, noting that 1.4 million people risk losing access to HIV treatment, while 2.1 million children and pregnant women face malnutrition without nutritional support.

The ripple effects extend to biosecurity, with funding for Ebola monitoring and outbreak preparedness also frozen at a time when Uganda’s capital has reported new cases.

This sudden cutoff underscores a stark reality: the U.S., through USAID, had positioned itself as a vital partner in Uganda’s development, only to pull the rug out with little warning or contingency. The lack of clarity surrounding the suspension—exemptions for “life-saving humanitarian assistance” remain ill-defined—has left local organizations in limbo, unable to plan or seek alternatives.

For a nation like Uganda already stretched thin by economic challenges and regional instability, this move feels less like a strategic recalibration and more like abandonment.

 Unreliable Partner

The Trump administration’s decision to suspend USAID funds reveals a troubling pattern of inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy.

Historically, USAID was established under President John F. Kennedy in 1961 as a tool to counter Soviet influence during the Cold War, embodying a commitment to long-term development and stability in partner nations.

Over decades, it evolved into a symbol of American benevolence, saving millions of lives and bolstering U.S. credibility worldwide. Yet, Trump’s “America First” agenda, reiterated in his second term, prioritizes domestic interests over global goodwill, treating foreign aid as a discretionary expense rather than a strategic investment.

This isn’t the first time Trump has targeted foreign assistance. During his first term, he proposed slashing aid budgets by a third, only to be rebuffed by Congress.

The fallout in Uganda exposes the U.S. as a partner that can’t be trusted to honor commitments. For Ugandans who relied on U.S. generosity—whether for ARVs or human rights advocacy—the message is clear: American support is conditional and revocable at a moment’s notice, regardless of the human cost.

This unreliability stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric of U.S. leadership. For years, Washington has touted foreign aid as a bulwark against the influence of rivals like Russia and China, particularly in Africa.

The Trump administration itself has decried Beijing’s growing footprint, yet its actions undermine the very mechanisms designed to counter it. By dismantling USAID, the U.S. is not just retreating from the global stage—it’s handing the keys to its competitors.

 

Russia and China

The suspension of USAID funds creates a vacuum that Russia and China are well-positioned to fill. Both nations have long sought to expand their influence in Africa, leveraging economic investments and strategic partnerships to challenge Western dominance.

Uganda, with its strategic location and resource potential, is a prime target. Unlike USAID’s emphasis on health and human rights, which can be disrupted overnight, China’s model prioritizes infrastructure and economic ties, fostering dependency and goodwill over time.

The USAID suspension provides Beijing a “perfect opportunity,” to step in where the U.S. has faltered, offering aid or loans to stabilize Uganda’s reeling health sector or bolster its economy.

Russia, meanwhile, brings a different playbook. Though its economic footprint in Africa is smaller than China’s, Moscow has gained traction through military and security cooperation.

In Uganda, where regional conflicts and refugee inflows strain stability, Russia could offer arms, training, or peacekeeping support—areas the U.S. has largely ceded to humanitarian rather than hard power.

The contrast is striking: while the U.S. freezes aid amid a 90-day review, China and Russia act decisively, unencumbered by the bureaucratic or ideological debates paralyzing Washington. For Uganda, the choice may soon shift from relying on an erratic U.S. to embracing partners who, while not altruistic, deliver consistency. As one expert put it, China doesn’t need to match USAID’s budget to outmaneuver the U.S.—it just needs to show up when America doesn’t.

Consequences

The suspension of USAID funds to Uganda is more than a policy misstep—it’s a self-inflicted wound that weakens U.S. standing and emboldens its rivals. The human toll is immediate: millions face disease, hunger, and despair as health and human rights programs collapse.

But the strategic cost may endure far longer. By abandoning its role as a reliable partner, the U.S. risks ceding Africa—a continent of growing demographic and economic significance—to powers with starkly different visions for the world.

For Uganda, the lesson is bitter but clear: dependence on American aid comes with an expiration date. As Russia and China step into the breach, offering pragmatic alternatives to USAID’s faltering promises, the U.S. may find its influence diminished not by external threats, but by its own hand.

The writer is a Ugandan Journalist with passion for current African affairs