Leveraging Starvation: Studying the Weaponization of Humanitarian Aid in a Political World

Author: Trisha Sayal

October 8, 2025

Introduction

Humanitarian aid is under attack — the perpetrators of which are capitalist, democratic governments that choose to pursue political and military priorities over saving lives.

In March 2025, over four-fifths of all USAID programming was canceled by the Trump administration following government initiatives to eliminate financial bloating. Later in July, the remainder of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) programs were formally absorbed by the State Department. These decisions came shortly after President Donald Trump took office, when he decided that USAID was one of his first targets for budget cuts. 

[Image source: TFPP Wire]

Since then, aid cuts have been a cornerstone of his foreign policy objectives and exerting control over international development. Unfortunately, American institutions have only reinforced these policies. On August 13, 2025, the United States Federal Court of Appeals handed a victory to Trump via a decision barring nonprofits and NGOs from questioning and challenging the Trump administration’s elimination of their government aid. In doing so, the American judicial system aligned itself with policies of censorship, government control, and mortality. 

Aid cuts have recently become a global phenomenon. The United Kingdom recently announced that it would be stalling humanitarian aid funding, allocating only 0.3% of its gross national income in 2027, in favor of increasing the defense budget. Germany has also taken a similar approach, as its 2025 federal budget draft included almost $1 billion in budget cuts to the Economic Cooperation and Development Ministry. This trend, in which wealthy, democratic countries that once sought to expand their soft power through the provision of aid and development infrastructure are now opting to bolster their defense, is emblematic of rising conservatism and nationalism worldwide. 

Lost in the noise over government spending is the concrete, measurable value of humanitarian aid organizations like the USAID. According to The Lancet Medical Journal, increased USAID funding saved 91 million lives over 20 years. The question thus remains — if humanitarian aid has saved tens of millions of lives, why are wealthy nations willing to turn it into a tool of political power, even at the expense of human survival?

The Political History of Humanitarian Aid

While humanitarianism as an ethical principle and philosophy has long historical roots, the systemic, organized, and global provision of humanitarian aid during periods of mass suffering is a relatively new concept. ODI Global marks the turning point into institutionalized humanitarianism as the creation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in the late nineteenth century. Now, 160 years later, the ICRC’s seven Fundamental Principles — humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity, and universality — have shaped the foundation of modern humanitarian action.

Humanitarianism has always served a political purpose, even in its most basic form. The ICRC’s first project as a budding international aid agency was to act as a mediator and communicator between warring Germany and Denmark in 1864, emphasizing neutrality, peace, and, above all, stability. 

While the ICRC served as a neutral mediator at its inception, the US aid agencies were born out of the ideological conflicts of the Cold War. In President Henry Truman’s 1949 inaugural address, he presented a push for global humanitarian development as a means to slow the spread of communism and Soviet ideology, aiming to utilize aid to strengthen US ties in vulnerable, underdeveloped countries and establish American infrastructure and ideals. 

Although USAID was established over a decade later, this sentiment was echoed throughout the organization. While one of USAID’s goals was to assist underdeveloped and conflict-stricken areas, aid was also targeted toward countries explicitly deemed strategic for the nation’s geopolitical goals. Furthermore, previous USAID initiatives often targeted undeveloped countries to push economic and political reform. For example, USAID Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance projects intended to broadly strengthen government institutions by creating government watchdogs and increasing civil society in non-democratic countries, citing concerns over civil war and criminal activity. Older projects such as the Democratic Institutions Support Project, looked to create political and financial institutions that would support democracy-building and free-market capitalism. 

These projects historically worked in tandem with the goals of global economic organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Both organizations have historically intertwined humanitarian aid and reform through projects such as country-specific Structural Adjustment Programs, which were used throughout the post-Cold War and decolonization periods to nudge countries in the Global South toward Western development. Although many of these programs are no longer in place, the motivations remain; modern IMF projects yield similar net outcomes, including increased poverty, stagnant economic growth, and significant US involvement. With his elimination of USAID, Trump has made a statement about which objective, foreign or domestic relations, the United States will prioritize going forward.

Modeling Humanitarian Aid Globally

According to the Center for Global Development, the growing shift toward conservatism and right-wing populism worldwide is expected to continue having a depressive effect on foreign aid budgets. When surveying countries that made up 82% of foreign aid donors, right-leaning governments increased their aid by 0.2% per year in power, as opposed to over 3% per year in power for left-leaning governments. 

Donor countries, therefore, are becoming more selective as they become less willing to provide humanitarian aid without clear political benefits. One policymaker cited a lack of advocacy and visible public support for foreign aid as the reason behind worldwide cuts, describing how “even recipients stay quiet” to preserve the limited access they have and the lack of a solid voting bloc campaigning for humanitarian aid. Therefore, aid, in the eyes of many politicians and donor governments, must serve a purpose outside its humanitarian focus.

The changing political landscape may indicate an increase in value to recipients for the dwindling humanitarian aid. As aid budgets shrink, various conflicts and development projects must compete for a dwindling share of the funding, trying to prove their worthiness to awarding governments. It also puts recipient countries at a more disadvantageous negotiating position as supply diminishes, making them vulnerable and allowing donors to leverage aid against them to further their own political, cultural, or financial interests.

For example, the European Union recently announced it was withholding $1.7 billion of aid intended for non-military purposes in Ukraine, a decision which came after a slew of national protests over allegations of corruption and anti-democratic practices. In this instance, not only was aid weaponized against Ukraine in an attempt to force ideological and democratic realignment, but the move also sends a message to civilians back home about holding allies accountable. 

Although furthering the spread of democratic ideals is crucial for advancing and establishing human rights in a stressed, transforming wartime society like Ukraine, leaving clear ideological footprints in Eastern Europe also enables EU countries to challenge Putin’s cultural chokehold by stimulating anger and resentment towards authoritarianism. 

Humanitarian aid can also be used to perpetuate political violence. On August 14th, 2025, Doctors Without Borders joined over 100 other humanitarian organizations in calling for an end to Israel’s aid blockages to the Gaza Strip, citing Israel’s manipulative provision of aid to draw Palestinian refugees into active conflict zones. 

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the primary NGO created by Israel and the United States to distribute aid to the Palestinian people, has been the subject of immense criticism amid the U.N.’s call for its immediate dismantling. According to the United Nations, the food-distribution sites operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation have provided the opposite of health and prosperity to the vulnerable by further promoting the displacement of the Palestinian population, alongside Israeli forces indiscriminately attacking and firing on civilians seeking aid. Doctors Without Borders noted that there has been a worrying uptick in those who come away from these supposed aid sites with gunshot wounds, suggesting that mass hunger and starvation have been used to lure desperate citizens into military fire.

Doctors Without Borders urges more humanitarian aid for Gaza [Image source: CBS News]

Furthermore, the Israeli military has weaponized the distribution of humanitarian aid in the form of food and water by barring aid from charities that “delegitimize” the Israeli government. Israel has blocked more than $7 million worth of humanitarian assistance from entering an area facing an ongoing starvation crisis and rejected the registration of over 60 aid groups in July 2025 alone. By mandating total allegiance to the government from non-government bodies and international watchdogs, Israel attempts to start a complete ideological takeover and censor criticism of its actions. 

By limiting the number of organizations that can provide humanitarian assistance to Gazans, Israel has purposefully displaced those desperate enough for food aid. The Southern location of the four distribution sites controlled by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has forced those seeking refuge in Northern Gaza to venture back into territories under complete control of the Israeli military. Almost 1,400 civilians have been killed and 4,000 wounded in the search for this basic human need, many of them the elderly, disabled, women, and children who physically cannot access aid services.

As conflict-stricken countries desperately look to donor nations for help, it becomes the responsibility of not only the donor country but the international community to uphold humanitarian standards. We cannot let the wealthy take control of our humanity.

---

Glossary

• Authoritarianism: A political system characterized by the centralization and concentration of government power, often maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential or supposed challengers by armed force.

• Capitalism: An economic system and theory based on private ownership of the means of production and its usage for profit.

• Chokehold: To maintain absolute control or dominance over something.

• Cold War: A period of global political, economic, and ideological tension without direct military conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies, lasting from the end of World War II in 1945 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

• Communism: An economic system and theory based on collective ownership of the means of production.

• Conservatism: A political view aligned with a commitment to traditional values and policies, private ownership, and a free-market system.

• Cornerstone: A founding or essential principle of a policy or idea.

• Decolonization: The process of removing colonial entities and government from a state or region and restoring sovereignty to the colonized peoples.

• Delegitimize: To threaten the legitimacy and authority of a person or government.

• Dismantle: To systemically reverse or break down.

• Displacement: The expulsion of a group or people from its original place.

• Doctors Without Borders (Médecins Sans Frontières): A humanitarian organization based in France that provides humanitarian assistance, particularly in conflict zones and in countries affected by endemic diseases.

• Dwindling: Decreasing.

• Emblematic: Symbolic of a concept or idea.

• European Union (EU): A primarily European supranational political and economic union of 27 member states.

• Financial bloating: Unnecessary, excessive spending.

• Gaza Strip (Gaza): The smaller, eastern-most territory that, with the inclusion of the West Bank, forms the state of Palestine. 

• Geopolitical: Politics as defined by geographic factors and influences.

• Humanitarian aid: A form of assistance, often food, money, healthcare, or other support, that aims to save lives and ease suffering during and after a crisis. 

• Humanitarianism: A moral philosophy centered around the promotion of human welfare and the prioritization of human life.

• Impartiality: Equal treatment; neutrality.

• Inaugural: Marking the beginning of a new administration.

• Indiscriminate: Without a clear target; randomly.

• International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): A humanitarian organization based in Switzerland, intending to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.

• International Monetary Fund (IMF): A global financial institution with 191 member countries that often loans money to support economic growth, financial stability, monetary cooperation, job creation, and economic wellbeing.

• Intertwine: To connect or link two concepts together.

• Leverage: To use an existing resource or situation to maximize one’s own advantage.

• Manipulate: Handle or control unfairly.

• Nationalism: A political ideology that stresses alignment with and support for one’s own nation and its actions.

• Net outcomes: The final result accounting for all costs.

• Non-government organization (NGO): An organization, either for-profit or non-profit, that operates independently from government authority and influence.

• Nudge: Encourage something to move toward a certain behavior.

• Perpetuate: Causing or prolonging an event or situation.

• Phenomenon: An occurrence or event.

• Prosperity: Successful in material terms.

• Provision of aid: The distribution of humanitarian assistance to a target population undergoing crisis, often done by governments or global organizations.

• Recipients: Individuals or entities that receive a good or service.

• Refugee: Someone who has been forced to flee their home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution.

• Resentment: A growing feeling of bitterness or anger towards something.

• Right-wing populism: A political ideology that encompasses both conservative financial and cultural policies and pro-common people, anti-establishment sentiments.

• Soviet: Referring to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

• Tandem: Working together with.

• United Nations: A global peacemaking and security organization with 193 Member States, founded in 1945.

• U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID): The primary American government agency that provided foreign humanitarian and developmental assistance to developing countries.

• U.S. Court of Federal Appeals: One of the 13 United States courts of appeals located in Washington D.C..

• Venture: To go into, often with significant risk.

• Vladimir Putin: The current president of the Russian Federation.

• Watchdogs: Maintaining surveillance over something.

• World Bank: A global financial institution that often loans money and technical assistance to developing countries aiming to end extreme poverty and generate shared prosperity.