The Labour government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer entered office with an ambitious pledge: to return the UK to spending 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid “as soon as fiscal circumstances allow.” This pledge was in keeping with Britain’s long standing role as a global humanitarian leader.

But just eight months later, the government did a U-turn. As part of new proposals, UK aid is set to be reduced to 0.3% until 2027 - a cut of £4.5 billion in real terms. This is not just a number on the budget. The decision will kill people and break trust, undermining UK influence in the world.

The True Human Toll of Aid Cuts

This is not abstract policy — this is life or death. In Kenya, I interviewed the head of a grassroots group that provides reproductive health care to the most vulnerable. (map)” She then shared the tragic story of her 11-year-old rape survivor sister who died because she didn’t have reproductive health education and services.

And she is not alone. These decisions will hurt millions of women and girls all over the world. If past experience is any indicator, they will take the biggest hit from these cuts. Following similar cuts in 2021, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office:

• Cut each funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights funding by a third.

• Family planning spending cut in half

• Cut support for maternal and child health by 37%

These figures translate into lives lost, futures extinguished, and communities left even more vulnerable.

Abandoning the World’s Most Vulnerable

Prime Minister Starmer’s choice is not merely a budget update — it is a moral surrender. The UK is turning its back on the world’s poorest and most marginalised.

When former development minister Anneliese Dodds saw the devastating extent of its impact, she rightly resigned in protest and should be commended for her political integrity. Her resignation underscores what’s at stake — not just assistance, but lives.

Currently, more than 300 million people around the world need humanitarian assistance, according to the UN. Over 120 million people are displaced, and 2 million are on the brink of starvation. These figures are only rising as crises multiply in Gaza, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan.

Starmer’s Justification Misses the Point

Starmer said the cuts were essential for the “defence and security of the British people”. But this narrative misses the fact that foreign aid makes us more secure at home. When Britain invests in education, health and the stability of other countries, it helps to reduce the threats at home — extremism, conflict, mass migration — that undermine peace at home.

For example:

• UKAID-backed education programs help deter the recruitment of children by armed groups.

• The civil society approach empowers governments in fragile states, combating corruption and improving trust.

• They avoid unrest in racially or religiously divided societies through social cohesion projects.

• When these programs are underfunded, instability becomes more widespread — and so do its consequences.

No Risk Assessment, No Plan

This was done without a formal risk assessment, despite clear evidence of how effective UK aid has been. It was presented without public input, without alternate plans, and without a serious look at other revenue opportunities to fund development.

Instead, the decision seems politically motivated — intended to escape backlash from right-wing media and mirror aid reductions in the US by past and present administrations.

Stepping Back From the World Stage

The UK was once seen as an international aid superpower. That reputation is now falling apart. Even other democratic countries are dialing back their commitments. The European Commission, France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland have all pledged forthcoming cuts to development assistance. Germany has yet to decide.

As this vacuum has grown, authoritarian states like Russia, China and the U.A.E. have moved to fill the void — deepening their entrenchment in fragile countries and whitewashing repression abroad. These are not states that use aid to promote dignity and democracy, but control and to suppress dissent.

What Happens when Aid Goes Missing?

We’ve seen this story before. When President Donald Trump slashed U.S. aid, nations like Moldova and Armenia became vulnerable to Russian interference. Meanwhile, pro-democracy activists in Georgia faced a battle with encroaching authoritarianism. In Belarus and Russia, independent media and women’s rights organizations were brutally repressed without any outside support.

This vacuum enables authoritarian regimes to solidify power. And where civil society dies, extremism often thrives.

A Whack-a-Mole Approach Will Not Suffice

The UK recently committed to double its aid to Sudan and provide new funding for Gaza, but it isn't clear whether those commitments are safe over the long term. This “whack-a-mole” approach to foreign aid — responding to every new crisis but without a coherent strategy for action around the world — leaves whole regions exposed.

Areas such as the Sahel and Horn of Africa are experiencing extreme instability. Abandoning them after a quick hit will render them hot houses of extremism, organized crime and humanitarian catastrophe.”

The Rise of China and the Fall of British Power

China, in the meantime, is expanding its global network through its Belt and Road Initiative and its Global Security Initiative, both of which promote economic ties but undermine and dilute human rights norms.

In contrast, the United Kingdom’s soft power — which was once constructed through principled aid, cultural diplomacy and global partnerships — is fading. And as it weakens, so too does the UK’s ability to defend democracy, equality, and the rule of law.

This Is Not Just a Moral Failure — It’s a Strategic One

Apart from the huge cost to human life, this is a short-sighted decision. By sacrificing long-term global leadership for immediate domestic political victories, the UK risks far more than simply the figures in its budget.

Even Keir Starmer used to know this. Cutting foreign aid “is not in the national interest” and “will increase costs and have a big impact on our economy,” he said in 2021. He was right then. He must remember that now.

The UK Must Step Up, Not Step Back

The decision to slash UK aid is not merely a change of policy — it is a deep error, with life-or-death consequences. It is a renunciation of obligation, a setback for Britain’s global power, and a rejection of those most in need of us.

We can still change course. Great Britain has to reinvest in its soft power, it has to back up human rights and it has to deliver on promises — not just because it’s a right and proper thing to do but because that’s in our mutual interest. Keir Starmer needs to pay attention to what he says and then follow up on it. The world is watching. And so do the lives of people who are impacted by our decisions.