Study Links USAID Shutdown to Rising Violence in African Refugee Camps
Kakuma, 20 May 2026
Research published in Science reveals that terminating America’s premier aid agency triggered increased conflict across African regions that previously received assistance. The study highlights protests at Kenya’s Kakuma refugee camp in July 2025, where 300,000 refugees faced sharply reduced food distributions following funding cuts, resulting in violent demonstrations and one death. University of Chicago data scientist Austin Wright warns that the collapse of sophisticated humanitarian programmes undermines livelihoods and creates recruitment opportunities for armed groups.
Research Methodology and Key Findings
The research team, led by Austin Wright from the University of Chicago, analysed USAID funds disbursed at the state or provincial level before the agency’s termination and overlaid this data with conflict activity from ten months before and after early 2025 [1][2]. The study examined various forms of violence including armed clashes, protests, riots, and violence against civilians using data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data database [1][2]. The findings revealed that areas which previously received more USAID assistance experienced increased conflict after aid withdrawal, making populations vulnerable to recruitment by armed groups [1][2]. The increase in violence encompassed combat between armed groups, hostile public demonstrations, and targeted violence against noncombatants [1][2].
Kakuma Camp: A Case Study in Aid Withdrawal Consequences
The Kakuma refugee camp in northwest Kenya became a focal point of the study, illustrating the direct consequences of abrupt funding termination [1][2]. In July 2025, approximately 300,000 refugees at the camp faced drastically reduced food distributions following USAID cuts [1][2]. Wright described how ‘after the cuts, food distributions were sharply reduced, and refugees took to the streets,’ with protesters throwing rocks and setting fires [1][2]. The demonstrations resulted in one fatality, which Wright characterised as ‘exactly the kind of incident our results capture’ [1][2]. The researcher emphasised that ‘the rapid collapse of what is probably the most sophisticated humanitarian assistance program in human history had enormous consequences on the ground, undermining livelihoods and therefore leading to a surge in violence’ [1][2].
The Dual Nature of Aid and Violence
Wright’s analysis revealed the complex relationship between foreign aid and conflict dynamics, noting that ‘aid can also increase conflict by introducing something to fight over’ [1][2]. This paradox highlights how humanitarian assistance can simultaneously reduce violence by providing jobs and resources whilst creating new sources of contention [2]. The research suggests that when aid is abruptly withdrawn, the resulting vacuum can exacerbate existing tensions and create conditions conducive to violence [1][2]. Wright warned that ‘recent conflict is the single best predictor of future conflict’ and that violence tends to be self-reinforcing once it escalates [2]. The situation is unlikely to improve even if aid is restored, according to the research findings [2].
Government Response and Mitigation Strategies
The study identified an important exception to the general pattern of increased conflict: areas with governments that maintain stronger constraints on executive leadership experienced less impact from aid withdrawal [1][2]. Nigeria’s approval of a $200 million supplementary health budget and South Africa’s decision to cover gaps in AIDS and HIV treatment serve as examples of institutional responses that helped constituents weather the funding withdrawal [1][2]. However, the U.S. State Department has disputed the study’s conclusions, with spokesperson Tommy Pigott arguing that the report ‘fundamentally ignores what is actually happening in Africa’ [1][2]. Pigott claimed that ‘the Trump administration has reinvigorated our assistance programs to focus on efficiency, effectiveness, and partnership’ [1][2]. Despite these criticisms, statistician Andy Solow from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution expressed confidence in the research, stating: ‘They’re not likely to overturn the basic result, which is that the cutoff led to an increase in conflict. I believe their results. They’re convincing’ [1][2].