Trump’s 90-day freeze on foreign aid could be the precursor to the collapse of the UN, its corollary agencies, the World Bank, the IMF and the entire post-World War Two international order. These are not my words. They come from Sir Myles Wickstead, Britain’s leading expert on development issues whom I spoke to on Friday.

“The whole international system,” said Sir Myles, “depends on each country paying its fair share based on their national income. If a major player like the US pulls out the entire edifice is endangered.”

He also said that many would die as an immediate result of the freeze and thousands of aid workers would lose their jobs, which would have an impact on distribution in the future even if there are no long-term cuts. “Philanthropic organisations such as the Gates Foundation will be able to fill some of the gaps,” said Sir Myles, “but they have only a fraction of the money available to the US government.”

The United States is the world’s largest contributor to international development aid. In 2023 it provided $73 billion in foreign aid—more than twice as much as the next biggest contributor—the EU at $35 billion. Germany was third at £32 billion, followed by Japan $28 billion and the UK (which reduced its foreign budget from 0.7 percent of GDP to 0.5 percent).

The American freeze and anticipated cut is expected to have an especially disastrous effect on Sub Saharan Africa. More than half a dozen countries rely on development aid—mainly American—for half of their GDP. It makes up 20 per cent for more for another dozen. All 54 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa receive proportion of their income in aid.

American aid has been especially important in combatting HIV/AIDS around the world through its PEPFAR programme. It is reckoned that PEPFAR has saved 25 million lives since it was initiated in 2003. A government spokesman for South Africa, where 19 per cent of 14 to 49-year-olds suffer from HIV/AIDS, said: “Millions may die as a result of this freeze. Patients need to receive their treatments on a regular basis. If they don’t they could die. And heavens knows what will happen if there is a permanent cut.”

US aid also provides cash for mine-clearing in Southeast Asia, support and medical services for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and humanitarian aid in Ukraine as well as funding pro-democracy work in countries threatened by Russia.

Not all aid has been cut. Egypt and Israel are still receiving military aid. Israel receives $3.8 billion and Egypt $1.3 billion. Since the initial announcement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made exceptions for “life-saving humanitarian assistance,” but made it clear that aid would not be extended to programmes that involved abortion, family planning or transgender surgeries. Also, that all waivers to the initial catch-all announcement have to be made on a case-by-case basis.

An additional problem has been the sacking of about 600 USAID officials before the State Department—which has been tasked with taking over responsibility for American aid distribution—arrive to take their place. It is clear from statements out of the White House and the State Department that transactional diplomacy has replaced benevolence. Trump said: “Why should we give money to countries who hate us?” A State Department spokesman added: “Every dollar we spend. Every programme we fund. Every policy we pursue, must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make American safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

Sir Myles said that it was “perfectly reasonable” to re-examine spending priorities. “But not in this cack-handed way.” He added that after World War Two the Western governments financially supported countries that were on our side. It was seen as a way of keeping countries in our sphere of influence. “But it was agreed among the developed world that the primary beneficiaries of aid would always be the partner countries.”

Sir Myles also expressed concern about the long-term impact on how America is viewed by the rest of the world. He said that aid was an important in soft power diplomacy tool which is becoming increasingly important. The Trump Administration is more focused on hard power. “I am in no doubt,” he added, “that the US reputation around the world will suffer.”

Sir Myles also agreed that the cuts in American aid offered opportunities to Russia and China. Russia not so much because its economy was too weak and it is tied down in the Ukraine. China, however, has the resources, but it would need to shift them from investment to aid.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and author of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain".