A harrowing new study published in Nature warns that sweeping cuts to global nutrition funding could result in 369,000 additional child deaths every year. The analysis, conducted by the Standing Together for Nutrition Consortium (ST4N), a global network of leading development and nutrition experts, finds that up to 2.3 million children suffering from severe acute malnutrition (SAM)— the most lethal form of undernutrition— are now at risk of losing access to life-saving treatment.
“It comes down to this,” says Saskia Osendarp, Executive Director of the Micronutrient Forum, hosts of ST4N. “Seven children will die every ten minutes, not because we don’t have the tools to save them— but because money is being pulled. It’s hard to wrap your head around. And honestly, just like during the early days of COVID, I remember feeling this overwhelming sense of panic— thinking, Oh my God, what is happening?”
The cuts to global nutrition aid are indeed staggering. The dismantling of USAID and reductions by the UK (40%), France (37%), the Netherlands (30%), and Belgium (25%)— are equivalent to 44% of the $1.6 billion provided in 2022.
USAID-funded nutrition programs in particular— valued at $128 million in 2022— vanished almost overnight in a manner that Lawrence Haddad, Executive Director of the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, describes as “brutal, sudden, and indiscriminate.”
The Nature analysis links this single decision to the loss of treatment for one million children suffering from severe acute malnutrition, and an estimated 163,500 additional child deaths annually.
Helen Keller International In Nigeria
In Nigeria, where 2 million children face severe malnutrition and stunting affects one in three under-fives, funding cuts pulled the rug out from under life-saving programs— leaving millions vulnerable and unprotected.
In May 2024, global health non-profit, Helen Keller International had just celebrated 25 years of progress in the West African nation, with an impressive reach of over 73 million people. “This is going to continue to happen as long as we have resources to invest in the states where we support,” said Aliyu Mohammed, Helen Keller’s Country Director in an interview to mark the occasion.
A mere nine months later, in February 2025, the organization received termination notices for all its U.S. government-funded projects. The withdrawal of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding meant that programs providing nutrition services to 5.6 million Nigerian children were halted.
According to Helen Keller International, 21 million people across the countries it serves— many of them young children— are now at increased risk of severe malnutrition.
“Tools like the delivery of essential vitamins and nutrients, climate-smart agriculture, and screening and treatment of malnutrition have the power to severely reduce malnutrition, but suspended funding threatens our progress,” said Sarah Bouchie, President and Chief Executive Officer of Helen Keller International, in a statement.
While Nigeria’s story is emblematic, it’s only one thread in a broader unraveling of the global nutrition safety net.
The Broader Impact of Nutrition Funding Cuts
In addition to treatment programs, nutrition funding cuts have hit essential prevention programs— breastfeeding promotion, food fortification, school feeding, agriculture, and social protection. These are the invisible pillars that keep millions of children from slipping into wasting, stunting, and life-threatening deficiencies.
Severe acute malnutrition affects 13.7 million children annually. Without treatment, up to 60% will die. Ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF)— a dense, peanut-based paste that has become the gold standard for treating severe malnutrition— was largely funded by USAID. The global supply has now been cut in half.
ST4N data reveals a $290 million drop in funding for severe acute malnutrition treatment alone. The ripple effects are devastating. Beyond the immediate health toll, the long-term economic and political consequences are substantial. Malnutrition undermines human capital, weakens labor markets, and slows economic growth— both at home and abroad.
“Evidence shows that this is going to impact the safety, the stability, and the prosperity of the United States and of other donor countries,” says Osendarp. “We’ve seen that hunger and food insecurity have been one of the root causes of civil unrest and even of wars.”
Haddad agrees: “Hungry and malnourished people are restless,” he says. “They’re going to go overseas in search of a better life. Hungry and malnourished people have less to lose from conflict. They’re much less likely to be building thriving enterprises and thriving economies to buy American and European goods.”
The Way Forward For Nutrition Funding
The Standing Together for Nutrition Consortium is calling on governments and donors to take urgent action, affirming that “Failure to act now will result not only in a drastic increase in child mortality but also in long-term societal damage.”
Recommendations include restoring humanitarian nutrition programs, scaling up evidence-based interventions, broadening funding streams— including domestic and private-sector sources— and strengthening data systems for crisis response.
Experts are urging governments and donors to look beyond traditional aid. Development banks and international finance institutions, whose lending is already allocated for the next several years, could integrate nutrition into concessional loan frameworks. The private sector could be incentivized to provide workforce nutrition programs. Small and medium enterprises could receive support to produce locally made, highly nutritious complementary foods for young children.
“There’s a massive opportunity here,” says Haddad. “Governments can use some of the remaining aid to help countries access concessional loans and integrate nutrition into those packages. Most banks haven’t figured out how to include nutrition— or don’t think they have the mandate. Some even worry they’ll lose their credit rating because nutrition is seen as too risky.”
Haddad also calls on the private sector to do more: “Why aren’t we incentivizing companies to run workforce nutrition programs? Offer tax breaks. It’s good for workers and good for the bottom line.”
Osendarp agrees and sees hope in emerging coalitions.
“There’s a growing dialogue between the climate and nutrition communities,” she says. “We’re starting to see investment in local food production, climate-smart agriculture, and nutritious foods for infants being produced by small businesses. These movements existed before the cuts, but now they must be accelerated. We need to unlock these other sources of funding— and fast.”
Unless timely action is taken, ongoing cuts to nutrition funding are likely to lead to further loss of life— weakening treatment systems, limiting prevention efforts, and reversing years of progress. This represents a significant public health challenge with far-reaching, long-term consequences. By the time that this article has been read, seven more children will have died— victims of a crisis for which proven solutions already exist.
