Germany Cuts Development Aid Despite Global Crises, Drawing NGO Warnings

German Development Minister Reem Alabali Radovan stood before the Bundestag in September and laid out a catalog of catastrophe: floods in Nepal, heat waves turning forests to ash, rivers running dry, crops withering in drought. "Millions of people are facing hunger," she said. "And one thing is clear: The climate crisis is threatening the entire world. No country can tackle it alone." Then she announced that her ministry's budget would shrink again—the fifth year running—falling from just over ten billion euros to just under nine and a half billion. Since 2022, when the budget stood at nearly fourteen billion euros, the ministry has lost roughly one-third of its funding.

The contradiction was immediate and stark. Radovan had unveiled a strategy in January positioning development policy as a pillar of German security, equal to diplomacy and defense. Yet the money was moving in the opposite direction. The cuts are real and measurable. A survey by VENRO, the umbrella organization representing around 150 development and humanitarian NGOs, found that among just 34 member organizations, more than ten million fewer people are now receiving assistance. Humanitarian aid, administered by the German Foreign Office, has stagnated at one billion euros since 2025, down from more than three billion in 2022. Michael Herbst, of VENRO's executive board, warned that the full damage from these cuts would not become visible for another three to four years—by which time many local partner organizations essential to effective aid work would have ceased operating entirely.

The budget squeeze stems from decisions made after Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced a Zeitenwende—a turning point—and Germany embarked on a major military buildup. The defense budget has grown year after year. Nearly every other ministry has had to absorb cuts. Development aid was no exception. Herbst called on the Bundestag to exempt both development cooperation and humanitarian assistance from Germany's constitutional debt brake, the same exemption already granted to military modernization and weapons aid to Ukraine. "After all, exceptions have already been made for the modernization of the Bundeswehr and for military aid to Ukraine," he said. An exemption would allow Germany to reassume greater responsibility on the international stage.

Jamila Schäfer, a Green Party member of parliament, made a similar argument during the budget debate. Climate action and development cooperation are not charity, she said—they are firmly in Germany's own interest. "Germany must invest in its defense capabilities, but security is not created through investments in the defense budget alone," she argued. "Those who strengthen military security while cutting support for international stability have a blind spot in their security policy." But Nicolas Zippelius, a lawmaker from the governing Christian Democratic Union, rejected the case for exemption. Every ministry must contribute to consolidating the federal budget, he said. Less money does not necessarily mean less impact; it should force clearer prioritization. The question, he argued, is whether every euro reaches where it can make the greatest difference.

Jan Sebastian Friedrich-Rust, who heads Action Against Hunger, offered a starkly different calculus. The planned cuts for 2027 are "short-sighted and dangerous," he said in a written statement. As a result, up to 22.6 million people worldwide could die by 2030. But beyond the human toll, Friedrich-Rust argued, the cuts are fiscally foolish. Hunger, crises, and instability generate long-term costs that far exceed the cost of prevention. "Those who cut spending today are merely postponing the bill and ultimately making it much more expensive," he warned. To press the point, Action Against Hunger and allied organizations delivered a petition to the leaders of the governing coalition on the eve of the budget debate. About 100,000 people had signed it, calling on Germany not to balance its budget at the expense of solidarity and international aid.

The debate now turns on a fundamental question about how Germany sees itself in a fractured world. Radovan opened her speech by naming the crises—the floods, the heat, the hunger. She said no country can tackle them alone. Yet the budget tells a different story: that Germany's primary obligation is to itself, that military strength comes first, and that development and humanitarian work must absorb the remainder. Aid organizations are betting that the Bundestag will see the contradiction and act. The petition, the warnings about preventable deaths, the evidence of ten million people already losing assistance—these are the arguments they are making. Whether they move the needle on a budget already set on a downward course remains to be seen.