Trump’s Aid Cuts Could Devastate Myanmar More Than Anyone Expects

US President Donald Trump’s executive order to halt foreign aid, followed by the shutdown plan of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), has caused panic and chaos in the global humanitarian landscape. Myanmar is no exception. The US has been a significant contributor to the country’s emergency and community resilience works. USAID’s shutdown, along with the broader reduction in US government funding, will have far-reaching implications for cross-border and in-country aid operations for Myanmar.

Myanmar accounts for over US$238 million of the combined portfolios of US$35 billion among 159 countries that received USAID funding in 2024. Around 47 per cent of the US$238 million went to the humanitarian sector. The remainder went into sectors such as health care, economy, and education (Figure 1). The US has traditionally provided significant assistance to hard-to-reach regions in Myanmar through local partners and cross-border assistance. Refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and vulnerable communities in conflict-affected border regions are primary recipients.

Mere days after the aid freeze decision, people on the Thai-Myanmar border already felt the shock. Several agencies decided to cease essential humanitarian assistance programmes and shut down healthcare services on the Thai-Myanmar border. The Karenni Refugee Camp in Mae Hong Son District, Thailand, was the first to close down, stopping people, including pregnant women and those dependent on oxygen tanks to breathe, from using its equipment and medicine.

Aid for Rohingyas through Bangladesh will be the only exemption.

Trump’s aid decision will also potentially shake Myanmar’s in-country humanitarian system. Different funding sources currently provide in-country humanitarian and development assistance in Myanmar. The majority of the communities rely upon support from multilateral aid, such as provided by United Nations (UN) agencies. In 2024, the US’ contribution accounted for 43 per cent of global humanitarian efforts and 31.6 per cent of Myanmar’s humanitarian response plan in particular (Figure 2). The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Food Programme (WFP), and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) are the top three recipients of USAID funding.

Dire Situation

Given the significant UN funding gap between required aid amounts and actual disbursement, the implementation efforts of these agencies may be severely affected. Only critical operations, such as emergency food assistance and critical health care, will likely remain. A return to normalcy would be extremely difficult for people in conflict areas who rely on foreign aid to survive, given the potential reduction in assistance in delivering essential services such as long-term health care, education, community resilience, and agricultural production.

In Myanmar’s humanitarian context, “access” to the vulnerable population has been one of the fundamental challenges for local and international aid agencies. The conflict between the ruling junta and anti-junta elements has been heating up over the last six months, with the military losing two of its 15 regional command centres to different ethnic armed groups in northeastern and western Myanmar. As the military attempts to re-establish control over these areas, the lost territories will most likely become targets for airstrikes, bombings, and security operations. These regions will require immediate humanitarian assistance. To compound matters, the State Administration Council (SAC) frequently cuts off all communication channels, including aid delivery, making it impossible for all aid organisations to access those populations.

The intensity of conflict in Myanmar is not expected to decrease anytime soon, with the SAC’s election push in 2025 and the military’s forced recruitment. The UN’s estimate of people in need has increased from 18.6 million in 2024 to nearly 20 million people in 2025, equivalent to over a third of the population. Nonetheless, nearly 40 per cent of the population lives in conflict-affected areas that the SAC could not reach for the 2024 census. International aid agencies inside the country are restricted from travelling to and accessing these communities directly. In this situation, community-based organisations and civil society groups are key to the survival of millions of people on the ground. This abrupt cessation of funding will pose an existential threat to many small local organisations in the country and border areas, many of which are already facing huge difficulties with their operations due to security concerns.

The damage that Trump 2.0 has brought to Myanmar’s humanitarian sector is not just about staff losing jobs and local community organisations being out of work. It is also about putting thousands of people’s lives at risk.

Trump 2.0’s deliberate policy decisions will affect years of hard work community workers have put in. Far-fetched as it may seem, the practices of the “Do No Harm” principle, which US aid agencies often highlight, remain in question. In the upcoming weeks, the aid agencies must decide between letting go of their committed employees and scaling back their life-saving programmes on the ground (or both).

The damage that Trump 2.0 has brought to Myanmar’s humanitarian sector is not just about staff losing jobs and local community organisations being out of work. It is also about putting thousands of people’s lives at risk. The funding crisis in Myanmar that Trump 2.0 has created is so large that it would be insufficient for other donor countries to fill the gap immediately. China’s strings-attached loans and development assistance would likely be the SAC’s default choices to run the aid-reliant economy.

While the exact scale and intensity of how the Trump 2.0 aid crackdown will exacerbate Myanmar’s already dire socioeconomic landscape are still unclear, it seems like the paranoia of what was termed Trump Derangement Syndrome is now a harsh reality for people in need in Myanmar. This episode now raises pressing questions about accountability mechanisms for Myanmar and the global humanitarian system.

2025/46