The Impacts of USAID Cuts: Less Climate Resilience, More Forced Displacement

The Trump Administration’s move to effectively abolish the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has already caused significant and unnecessary human suffering and loss of lives around the world. These trends will continue and likely worsen as long as the funding is turned off. The climate resilience of communities and their abilities to stay safely in their homes will unquestionably suffer as a result.

This may lead to forced displacement of millions more individuals each year due to worsening disasters, decreasing availability of natural resources, and loss of livelihoods due to climatic changes. If the Trump Administration is sincere in its stated goal to severely limit international migration, these cuts will achieve the opposite by destroying existing programs that allow people to stay safely in their homes. 

This is all said with the caveat: Most people do not wish to move unless forced to by climatic and other pressures. However, migration can be a beneficial adaptive strategy for some. Planned relocation may become necessary for communities where climate change has exceeded the limits of adaptation, and it no longer remains safe to continue living there. This movement should be supported through legal, regular pathways, rather than criminalized. The Administration must also follow through on U.S. obligations under international and domestic law to support the right to asylum and protections against return of refugees to unsafe situations.

Cuts to USAID programs will also exacerbate and even create more unsafe situations that force people to become refugees. Aid programs to avert “violence, instability and extremism worsened by global warming” have been terminated. Climate change can increase conflict over more limited natural resources, amplify poverty and economic shocks that lead to instability, and make planning for disasters less predictable as they worsen and weather patterns shift.

These cuts are also incredibly wasteful: USAID’s Climate Strategy (2022–2030) aimed to ensure that funding across portfolios—from agriculture and other livelihoods, to healthcare and emergency food aid—factored in resilience to the current and expected impacts of climate change. Not only would this strategy have reduced harm from the climate crisis, but it would have saved money as well. Every dollar invested in adaptation and disaster resilience saves up to fifteen dollars in response and recovery.

And these cuts will trigger compounding losses. USAID was not funding these projects alone; the agency’s investments served as a catalyst for billions of dollars in private sector investment—supporting insurance for those affected by climate impacts, such as drought, extreme heat, and flooding, and attracting investment in renewable energy projects. Without U.S. leadership, other countries have reallocated their humanitarian budgets (for a number of reasons, including bolstering defense budgets due to scaled back U.S. support for alliances). Private sector support will surely be lost as well.

To save lives and money, the United States government must reverse course immediately. 

Impacts of USAID Cuts on Climate Resilience

What climate-specific capabilities and programs were being funded through USAID and have been terminated? Refugees International analyzed a list of USAID awards leaked to Congress as of March 21, 2025, detailing what had been terminated or remained active. Our analysis found that over 98 percent of all of USAID’s awards that included climate elements have been terminated.¹ This represents U.S. $2.1 billion—147 awards in total—that included climate elements, with just three awards totaling $36 million remaining active.

These terminated climate programs supported activities across the mitigation and adaptation spectrum, funding organizations from every region of the world and communities across incredibly climate-vulnerable areas. Often, these communities were facing the worsening shocks of the climate crisis with few resources. USAID programs were simultaneously decreasing countries’ reliance on fossil fuels, exposure to climate hazards, and need for international assistance.

Without the support from these programs, the climate crisis will undoubtedly worsen. With less support to transition to green energy, greenhouse gas emissions will rise, raising temperatures and worsening climate-driven disasters. Simultaneously, communities have lost support for early warning systems for disasters and adaptation of infrastructure and systems to climate change—leaving them more vulnerable than ever. With fewer programs to support agricultural livelihoods, the consequences of changing climate patterns and extreme weather will reduce incomes of the huge swaths of the world dependent on agriculture. 

The cumulative impact of these cuts is that people will face worsening disasters, with less capacity to respond and fewer resources to prepare. Ultimately, many will be forced to leave their homes and communities as a result—though most want to stay, and should be supported to do so safely and with dignity.

As one example, an award “to support preparedness and disaster risk mitigation to reduce the effects of hazards and climate change” in the Solomon Islands was terminated. The Solomon Islands are the second-most at-risk country globally to climate disaster, and emblematic of the existential consequences of climate change facing all small island developing states. Tropical cyclones, flash floods, droughts, and sea-level rise are forcing repeat displacement of residents, and may ultimately permanently displace them. Long-term planning will be essential to prepare for these risks, while USAID’s short-term disaster risk mitigation and preparedness programs would have prevented some of these effects.

USAID also supported diversifying agricultural systems to build resilience to climate change in places like Colombia. This ensured that farmers in conflict-affected regions could earn a living growing legal crops. If crops fail due to climate change, farmers are forced to turn to illicit crops like coca that fuel the opioid market or to move to cities to look for non-agricultural jobs. 

Terminated programs in Nepal had focused on increasing agricultural diversity, competitiveness, and productivity—reducing the risks of crop failure and post-harvest losses—as well as strengthening the capacity of Nepal’s national agricultural research institutions and extension systems. Again, without these programs, people will be forcibly displaced from agriculturally dependent rural areas to cities where they may face instability, poverty, and threats of violence, as well as new climate hazards, and may turn to onward international migration as their only option to address these threats. As the Center for Climate and Security notes, Nepal’s strategic location between China and India has increased its geopolitical importance in recent years and made it a target for influence for both countries, as well as the United States.

Many USAID programs had supported the geopolitical strategic interests of the United States, encouraging security and well-being in fragile or conflict-affected states, or places where the United States hoped to maintain strong local ties—something that the ongoing, deep partnerships that many USAID grants were able to build and maintain. For example, grants to partners in the Mekong Delta region, where China is heavily invested, and Moldova, within Russia’s sphere of influence, both may have served as a soft power counterbalance to those countries and have now been terminated.

USAID grants also aimed to prevent outbreaks of future epidemics that could have far-reaching consequences for global health, economic prosperity, and stability. One such grant in India provided technical assistance to address habitat loss and fragmentation, which can help prevent zoonotic disease spillover and human-wildlife conflict—two critical elements to ensuring that diseases are less able to spread from animals to humans. The next iteration of a COVID-19 or bird flu pandemic could be caused by the failure to maintain these USAID-supported programs.

Like pandemic preparedness and response, climate change is a global challenge that requires efforts on behalf of every country. Not only must the United States reduce its greenhouse gas emissions—known as climate change mitigation—but other countries must do so as well. To support these efforts, USAID funded the U.S. Department of Energy to strengthen other countries’ transitions to greener forms of energy and decarbonize their economies. For example, South Africa was being supported in its efforts to mobilize investment and achieve a just transition away from fossil fuels. Without these programs, countries will continue to burn fossil fuels and the world will continue to warm.

Finally, USAID grants served to support the United States to build and maintain institutional expertise, including in the areas of “resilience, environment, food security, nutrition, water security, sanitation, and hygiene, climate, infrastructure, and energy.” No matter one’s beliefs on the causes and future of climate change, any responsible government must maintain its expertise in these areas to be prepared for future challenges—expertise that these cuts have sorely diminished.

Since January 2025, Refugees International has met with displaced communities around the world. The gutting of humanitarian assistance has devastated both local and international organizations’ responses to displacement crises. And displaced communities often live in areas that are highly exposed to climate risks—and are typically left more vulnerable to these shocks with fewer resources to respond. As a result of the cuts, millions will die and many more will face worsened quality of life and likely greater displacement from the impacts of climate change—impacts that might be avoided if resilience programming had been maintained.

Bangladesh 

Bangladesh, ranked ninth worldwide for climate disaster risk, faces coastal sea-level rise, devastating flooding from melting glaciers and cyclones, and worsening extreme heat. The country also hosts over 1 million Rohingya refugees, most of whom live in Cox’s Bazar. One humanitarian official working there told Refugees International that increased mudslides were one of their biggest worries as a result of the aid cuts. In 2024 alone, heavy monsoon rains caused over 1,500 landslides in the camps, killing 12 Rohingya refugees and destroying hundreds of homes. Until the aid cuts, organizations had employed refugee “volunteers”—paid a small stipend for their work in the community—but were forced to let them go due to recent budget cuts. These community workers had been responsible for spreading awareness about monsoon preparation and warnings among residents. Aid cuts have also reduced programs that reinforced hillsides and helped construct stronger shelters for residents. All of these effects will compound and are likely to lead to more displacement and many avoidable deaths.

Uganda

In Uganda, the USAID program President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) supported HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment for millions of people, including refugees. The country hosts over 1.6 million refugees, the most of any country in Africa. Due to USAID cuts, PEPFAR has been essentially eliminated. Consequently, the Ugandan Ministry of Health indicated they will have to close every dedicated HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis (TB) clinic. We heard from government officials that cuts of this nature—to essential health care—have forced refugee families on extremely tight budgets to reallocate funding to now cover those items if they are able. For those that can still access treatment, they have less money to devote to making their homes more resilient or purchasing climate adaptive inputs for agriculture. At the same time, the climate crisis is bringing extreme heat and drought, then torrential downpours and flooding when it does rain, making farming more difficult. This will reduce self-reliance of refugee communities in the long run, leading to increased poverty and displacement for many. Moreover, those that are not able to afford or access treatment will face a resurgence of HIV/AIDS and its effects, including increased illness and death.

---

Impacts by Region

To understand the effects on individual countries and regions of interest, Refugees International coded countries based on project descriptions and additional information accessible via online databases. Forty-one percent, or over U.S. $873 million, of terminated USAID climate grants were not geographically bounded and considered Global,² while $1.25 billion in grants were allocated to specific regions or countries.Regions for each country have been assigned based on U.S. Department of State Bureaus. 

For more information on the breakdown of grants by region and country, see Appendix I. The Center for Global Development has conducted more detailed analysis of the country-level effects of USAID cuts across all grant categories as well.

In Absence of U.S. Leadership, Who Can Step In?

Local Actors

The negative impacts of the climate crisis will be exacerbated, while people’s ability to adapt will be sorely damaged by these cuts. As a result, we will likely see more people forced to move from their communities, particularly from rural areas—where their ability to survive from agriculture will be reduced—to cities. 

Cities must be prepared for these changes, and invest in better urban planning to support current residents in adapting to climate change and ensuring sufficient infrastructure for new arrivals. This infrastructure must be both physical as well as services: People need safe housing, transportation options, and job opportunities, as well as access to education and healthcare. 

While cities must be ready to fund some of these efforts themselves, given the increasing limitations on humanitarian aid, contributing countries, development banks, and the private sector should all be encouraged and prepared to collaborate with one another and step in to support these efforts. Donors must also use funding efficiently: they should collaborate more closely to learn from one another and avoid redundancy of efforts, while also scaling programs up and being responsive to local contexts and needs.

Multilateral Spaces

In addition to eliminating most USAID funding, the United States has also withdrawn its financial support for the work of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including future pledges to the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD). This fund is intended to provide assistance directly to communities who are experiencing “loss and damage” or negative consequences of climate change, that cannot be adapted to—both economic and non-economic, and including both extreme weather events and slow onset events. Forced displacement of communities and its manifold impacts—loss of homes, livelihoods, culture, language, ancestral heritage, and more—are undoubtedly among these consequences and meant to be addressed by the Fund. So while cuts to USAID programs will generate even greater loss and damage for communities around the world, funding to respond to these impacts is being cut simultaneously.

The recently operationalized-FRLD was achieved after decades of civil society mobilization, and has been in the long process of being set up for the past few years. In April 2025, the Board of the Fund announced measures for its “start up phase,” to distribute $250 million through 2026 to grants to Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries. These countries are facing some of the worst impacts of climate change already, including forced displacement of many of their communities. 

Yet this amount is just a few drops in the ocean of the forecasted need for loss and damage funding globally, estimated to be anywhere between U.S. $20 billion and $4 trillion. 

The Fund for responding to Loss and Damage is intended to provide assistance directly to communities who are experiencing loss and damage from climate change. To truly support and even foreground leadership of affected, frontline communities—those facing the most immediate consequences of the climate crisis—these communities must have direct access to resources. 

Refugees International’s research shows that directly funding local organizations is anywhere from 16–32 percent more efficient than international intermediaries, allowing more funding to be used by those most affected by crises. In our increasingly cost-constrained world, every penny counts, and funding community organizations directly can support doing the most good with the fewest dollars.

Though its finances are currently limited in scope and the start-up phase will only fund national government actions, the Fund perfectly epitomizes the kind of entity that the international community must get right to respond to community needs. As a World Bank-hosted fund, if this new institution can create the mechanism for funding community based organizations and driven work, then those lessons can be learned and carried over to other funding mechanisms as well.

However, given the fledging nature of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage and many of the other institutions and commitments still being operationalized under the Paris Agreement, they are still incredibly fragile and “funding contingent” (as described by Gillian Caldwell, former chief climate officer for USAID).

Robust commitments from other countries will be absolutely essential to ensuring that these institutions survive and are operationalized in a way that does center the participation and needs of the most climate-vulnerable communities. The United States has resigned from the Board of the Fund and indicated it does not plan to participate in any of the UNFCCC institutions. This can be an opportunity for others to lead, certainly, but the United States must quickly rejoin if the country is to have a say in what these institutions will look like for decades to come.

Recommendations for the U.S. Government

In the current political environment, programs of this nature are finding little support. Nonetheless, the United States has contributed immensely to the climate crisis and has an obligation to support communities to stay safely in their homes. The government must also do everything possible to prevent ecological destruction that will make the planet a less safe place for Americans as well. These should include disaster preparedness and response, pandemic avoidance, agricultural technologies, and greenhouse gas mitigation.

Refugees International recommends that the U.S. government take the following actions immediately:

Refocus on Programmatic Priorities, Not Branding: In the Biden Administration’s full court press to rejoin the Paris Agreement and be seen as a major actor in the fight against climate change, many of USAID and other U.S. programs that have existed for decades were increasingly branded as climate-specific activities. Yet, the core of many of these programs is about enabling people to stay safely in their homes and avoiding forced displacement. The Trump Administration would be wise to look beyond this branding and not throw the baby out with the bathwater: USAID must continue funding programs that deal with the reality of the impacts of climate change.

The alternative will be antithetical to the well-being of all people, including Americans. The risk of new epidemics is growing, and communities around the world are facing greater poverty and instability, leading to increased forced displacement and onward migration. U.S. allies are already turning to other countries—including China and Russia—for support, expanding their spheres of influence and diminishing that of the United States. The U.S. has also lost the catalytic effect of USAID funding, missing out on investment from the private sector and other countries that it inspired.

Maintain Congressional Oversight: The Trump Administration’s actions to dismantle USAID and terminate most of its programs will weaken U.S. readiness to respond to global crises and undermine our ability to protect Americans at home. Congress must exercise its oversight authority to investigate the legality of these actions, including the impoundment of already appropriated funds by the Department of State’s Office of Foreign Assistance. Congress should also reaffirm its exclusive jurisdiction over USAID’s statutory standing as a federal agency, and thoroughly investigate how the agency was dismantled and reverse actions taken by the administration.

Designate Appropriations for Humanitarian Response and Public Health: The United States has led the globe in responding to acute public health crises across the world, providing lifesaving food assistance, and responding to disasters. Congress must continue to fund key accounts for international humanitarian organizations that are working in crisis regions across the world to provide critical food and medical aid, as well as support for disaster preparedness, early warning systems, and resilience.

Reintroduce and Pass the Climate Displaced Persons Act: Previous versions of this legislation have advocated for global resilience, supporting communities to adapt to climate change so that they are not forcibly displaced if possible. When necessary to respond to climate change and chosen by individuals or communities, migration should be supported through legal, regular pathways. The Climate Displaced Persons Act could create some of these pathways to protect people displaced by climate change, targeting populations and countries most vulnerable to, and unable to recover from, the effects of climate change. Congress must update this legislation to reflect the realities of today and commit to its passage in this session.

Conclusion

“Life-saving humanitarian assistance” was cited as a rationale to continue a tiny fraction of USAID programs under a waiver after the initial alleged ‘pause’ of programs. However, life-saving humanitarian assistance is not just about immediate healthcare or emergency food aid: Disaster preparedness and early warning systems save lives. Better homes that allow people to survive a heat wave, typhoons, and floods save lives. Adapting agriculture to changing climate conditions to prevent crop failure and starvation saves lives. 

Waiting to spend money on these programs until after disasters have struck will not only cause unnecessary loss of lives, homes, and livelihoods, but will also cost significantly more money in the long run. The United States has already broken the trust of the global community and lost numerous allies. The longer we wait to resume USAID programs, the more these cuts will cost us—as a country and as a global community.

Cover photo: By Refugees International