Somalia’s crumbling healthcare system starkly highlights the consequences of reduced American foreign aid, particularly the cutback of funds to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) during the Trump administration. Once largely dependent on these funds, the nation’s health infrastructure is in disarray. With thousands of clinics shuttered and healthcare jobs disappearing, questions arise about the wisdom of American taxpayers footing the bill in the first place.
The situation on the ground is dire. Parents, like farmer Yusuf Bulle, now face exhausting travel just to access basic medical facilities. “Where I come from, there is no hospital,” he said, describing his journey to Mogadishu to seek care for his sick child. Over 6,000 health workers lost their jobs this year alone, signaling the depth of the crisis as facilities continue to close. “If the support drops further, we will not be able to deliver lifesaving services,” warned Dr. Abdirahim Omar Amin, capturing the reality faced by healthcare providers.
These program cuts stemmed from a deliberate shift in policy during Trump’s second term, aimed at realigning foreign aid with American interests. An Executive Order issued in early 2025 declared that the traditional structures of foreign assistance were out of sync with U.S. values and priorities. This sweeping directive suspended various humanitarian programs and severely curtailed development aid, illustrating a significant pivot towards focusing on domestic concerns over foreign financial commitments.
The impact of these changes was felt immediately in Somalia, where hospitals struggled to keep their doors open. Banadir Hospital, one of the last functional medical facilities, lost 37 staff members this year due to reduced funding. Administrator Dr. Mohamed Haashi noted that without external support, many facilities would fail to fulfill their critical missions. The observation by Dr. Abdirahim Omar Amin captures this drain on resources perfectly: “Now it looks like donors are fatigued.”
Discussions surrounding these cuts reflect a growing sentiment that countries like Somalia should not rely on American taxpayers for health system stability. A tweeted sentiment neatly encapsulated this emerging perspective, arguing that third-world nations should not depend on U.S. taxpayer dollars. This statement strikes at the core of America’s past engagement in foreign aid, where it historically served as a leading donor, providing a substantial percentage of global development assistance. In 2024 alone, the U.S. contributed over $63 billion, marking its significant influence on global welfare systems.
Somalia’s reliance on these funds reveals deeper issues within its own governance structure. The current administration has prioritized military conflict over public health, as acknowledged by officials. Without a national health care plan, dependence on foreign aid becomes less a temporary measure and more a permanent crutch. Puntland representative Mohamed Adam Dini’s statement underscores the lack of strategic planning for health care within the country, indicating that without foreign support, the system would disintegrate.
This reliance draws criticism from advocates for ending foreign aid. They argue that if aid prevents nations from addressing their own accountability and development, it loses its effectiveness and risks becoming an endless cycle of charity. For Somalia, the incoming of hundreds of millions in U.S. support annually has not built the frameworks for sustainable growth but rather entrenched a system of dependency.
Somalia is not alone in this predicament; similar challenges plague other nations affected by reduced aid. In Madagascar, for instance, critical health outreach programs have collapsed, leading to increased health crises. Dr. Velontafa Jackia shared her observations of rising disease rates directly tied to the abrupt withdrawal of American support. Any remaining medications, especially vital ones for chronic conditions, have become scarce, putting countless lives at risk. The reality is that countries have grown reliant on U.S. support, not as partners but as dependents.
As foreign policymakers consider the future of aid, Somalia’s struggles serve as a cautionary tale. They expose the long-term vulnerabilities that aid can create. In many cases, funding often leads to a lack of accountability within local governments, which no longer see the need to prioritize internal capacity building. The data about Somalia’s persistent underdevelopment demonstrates that even extensive financial support has not translated into sustainable growth or political stability.
The essential question is whether to reverse these cuts. Critics argue that the foreign aid system has devolved into an inefficient bureaucracy out of step with national interests. The rationale that aid enhances U.S. security increasingly lacks credible support, particularly if the funding ultimately fosters dependency rather than resilience.
For American taxpayers, the broader context is sobering. Decades of aid have not alleviated Somalia’s plight, leaving it among the lowest on various development metrics. The apparent disconnect between investment and results raises significant doubts about the value of continued support. The crisis in Somalia lays bare an uncomfortable truth: foreign aid cannot substitute for national responsibility. Until Somalia and similar countries take active steps toward building their own governance and service frameworks, it is difficult to justify the ongoing flow of American funds—a burden the U.S. taxpayer should not have to bear.
"*" indicates required fields
