Weaponising aid
Are Trump's policies holding human rights organisations hostage?

Boots stomping on Rights text made with small letters. Concept of violation of people rights
© ShutterstockFor decades, the United States of America’s foreign policy has been heavily influenced by its funding of various aid initiatives worldwide, as well as by its efforts to safeguard federal interests. Africa is currently a major recipient of funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for democracy and governance programmes, civil society capacity-building, and advocacy support. These initiatives have played a crucial role in promoting the rule of law and human rights, which are fundamental pillars of democracy. Additionally, they contribute to economic development and are essential to improving overall quality of life.
The funds allocated to these programmes have facilitated necessary reforms and dialogue to uphold democratic norms by strengthening and capacitating local governance institutions. This, in turn, promotes greater freedom globally.
A publication by the Cato Fraser Institute, the Human Freedom Index (HFI), identifies a strong, positive relationship between human freedom and democracy, as well as between human freedom and various well-being indicators—including tolerance, charitable giving, life expectancy, and environmental health. The HFI findings suggest that freedom plays a vital role in human well-being, offering opportunities for further research into the complex interactions between freedom, political regimes, economic development, and broader human well-being indicators.
The 90-day halt on these programmes is linked to the USA’s reassessment of its funding priorities, balancing domestic concerns with foreign aid policy. It is increasingly evident that firm, and in some cases discriminatory, positions on issues such as immigration, national identity, and LGBTQIA+ rights will impact the scope of US grant funding abroad.
Africa currently faces significant challenges, including political instability due to a surge in coup d’états over the past 18 months, which undermines democratic transitions and destabilises entire regions. Additionally, widespread human rights violations that affect refugees, indigenous peoples, and those caught in armed conflicts contribute to displacement, unjust persecution, and, in some cases, civilian casualties. While no single country can be held solely responsible for solving global crises, US-led aid programmes have provided crucial support to civilian populations and governments striving for development and reform.
A report by Human Rights Watch warns of far-reaching consequences for international humanitarian and development assistance, with disruptions that could severely impact millions in need. While monitoring and evaluation are necessary to assess impact over time, the abrupt nature of this reassessment has significant implications for both aid recipients and programme implementers. USAID’s mandate is time-bound, aiming to help partners become self-reliant in leading their own development journeys. However, some causes require continuous support depending on each country’s stage of reform.
Many organisations affected by this decision have refrained from publicly critiquing the new Trump administration’s stance, fearing repercussions tied to contractual and confidentiality clauses. One anonymous recipient of grant funding who also partners with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom in Sub-Saharan Africa on human rights initiatives stated:
“The suspension of aid to critical human rights programmes that advance a culture of democracy is emboldening repressive governments and risks rolling back the incremental gains made over the years. It further strengthens the narrative that civil society organisations serve foreign agendas. We appeal to the new US administration to urgently lift the suspension.”
The key question remains: What happens after this evaluation process? Many human rights funding initiatives are already limited, and advocacy in this space is inherently progressive and continuous. Could this suspension set a precedent, prompting donor countries in Europe and the Nordic regions to reconsider their own aid commitments? Could public scrutiny over prolonged donor-led programmes lead to a shift towards trust-based philanthropy or corporate funding? If so, how sustainable would such an approach be?
A thought leadership entity, Trialogue, published an article titled Freeing Africa from Donor Dependency, highlighting the power imbalances that often characterise donor-recipient relationships. The report emphasised that while philanthropy can be a valuable and flexible tool, enabling risk-taking in ways that governments and large institutions often cannot, many smaller organisations struggle to access donor funding due to gaps in governance, processes, and communication.
Access to grants has been instrumental in enabling human rights activists and defenders to carry out their work. Without such funding, many hard-won gains would not have been possible. Grassroots activism thrives on proximity, access, and the opportunity to drive meaningful change within communities. The United States has long been a major contributor to these efforts. In the coming months, the global development sector will face a critical test, one that will determine the resilience of human rights advocacy and the future of these crucial programmes.
Masechaba Masemola waMdaka works as the Regional Programme Officer in the FNF sub-Saharan Africa regional Office. Masechaba works extensively on issues of human rights advocacy and support to human rights defenders in Africa and is the host and producer of the FNF podcast titled “Let’s Talk Human Rights”