SCOOP: New analysis shows brutal axing of US health funding to Kenya
The near-total withdrawal of millions of dollars for health non-profits threatens hard-won gains against HIV and maternal and infant deaths.
The funding cuts by the United States Government (USG) to Kenya are brutal: from hundreds of millions of dollars to almost nothing. New analysis from the Health Security Policy Academy, a US-based global health think tank, shows US funding to Kenyan health non-profits nosedived from $260.9 million in 2024 to just $1.5 million in 2026, leaving only two organisations funded.
To understand the U.S. health aid cuts to Kenya more closely, Defrontera examined data obtained from the Health Security Policy Academy. In an email to Defrontera, Kwonjune Seung, a clinician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, host of the policy think tank in Boston, Massachusetts, wrote: “The picture is grim.”
The sledgehammer-like approach with which the US government slashed the funds is part of broader changes in US global health policy and spending, in a bid to move away from the traditional model of non-profit-led programmes towards providing health aid directly to African governments. A live dashboard published yesterday on the Health Security Policy Academy’s website shows that the country has lost much more: the data provided did not include funds coming to Kenya through international NGOs.
“They [international NGOs] work in so many countries, so only some of their funding is going to projects in Kenya,” said Seung.
In 2024, 44 registered non-profit organisations (NGOs) in Kenya received $260.9 million, about KES 35.2B at that time, the analysis showed. Then, the funds were axed to $170.9 million (about KES 22B) in 2025 and, in 2026, to just $1.5 million (KES 198 million). Only two organisations—Amref Health Africa ($1,289,905) in Kenya and LVCT Health ($234,586)—have allocations in 2026.
The NGOs whose funding were not cut had these 6 qualities
- In 2025, funding concentrated among large implementers, but by 2026, even these organisations saw steep declines, with some – like FHI360— losing nearly all their funding. NGOs cannot rely on size or past relationships with donors. E.g., World Vision maintained growth by operating across multiple sectors—health, nutrition, and WASH—and drawing on multiple donors, including private funding.
- Funding has shifted away from NGOs heavily focused on frontline programmes to those working in functions critical to keeping the system stable and operational.
NGOs should embed themselves in infrastructure, supply chains, and systems. For example, Chemonics International manages national procurement and logistics systems across countries, making it essential to programme delivery. - Organisations with a deep, in-country presence in Kenya—including local leadership and operational competence—were more likely to retain funding than those run primarily from abroad. E.g. Amref Health Africa operates through locally embedded teams across African countries, aligning closely with government systems. NGOs must embed themselves in national and subnational systems.
- Organisations that rely on a single donor stream were hardest hit. However, others like PATH work across governments, philanthropies, and private sector partnerships, reducing dependence on any one donor and maintaining multiple funding streams.
- Those managing funds directly fared better than subgrantees. NGOs can build capacity to lead consortia and manage grants directly.
- The organisations that escaped the cuts were those that the healthcare system cannot function without. NGOs must build capacity to run functions that funders are hesitant to defund, such as MEDS in Kenya, which ensures national drug distribution; without it, health facilities cannot operate.
Most of the organisations affected by the US health aid cuts work in HIV/AIDS and TB, and maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH), focusing on ensuring mothers deliver safely in hospitals, have free antenatal care, and that their babies receive immunisation. Primary healthcare and community health systems, particularly through county governments, Amref, World Vision, and the Christian Health Association of Kenya (CHAK), were also severely impacted.
Kenya’s health funding comes through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the agency that implemented its programmes, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The global health community had expressed hope that work in areas such as HIV prevention would continue, with PEPFAR spared from the axing that dismantled USAID.
But the US CDC, which should have received $1.3 billion for 2025/2026 to keep PEPFAR programmes running in countries like Kenya, has only received half of this year’s required funds ($640 million) from the State Department, as first reported by Science Magazine.
The impact of these actions by Washington is already being felt in Kenya. An official from Kenya’s National AIDS and STIs Control Programme (NASCOP), who spoke to Defrontera on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to comment, said the agency is concerned about the continued supply of essential commodities.
The timing is fraught, too: Kenya has only just begun rolling out the twice-yearly injectable lenacapavir as a new HIV prevention option. The funding cuts appear to reflect the new US administration’s preference for working with governments, rather than funding non-profits that operate outside government. “I do not know where the money is going to come from, not just for lenacapavir, but for other things needed for prevention and care,” the official told Defrontera.
Sources
Health Security Policy Academy - dashboard on funding that's been allocated and disbursed.
Science Magazine article - "Is Trump killing the heralded U.S. effort to help the world battle HIV?"
Data provided by Health Security Policy Academy - the Kenyan NGOs that have received funding from the US government 2024-2026
Share this feature
