Mali / USAID: Between media announcements and opacity, light needs to be shed on the cancellation of aid that has not existed for 2 years
On February 15, the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) announced the cancellation of a $14 million (approximately 8.7 billion CFA francs) funding package, officially intended to support social cohesion in Mali. This decision quickly sparked strong reactions, particularly from Malian authorities.
In a statement dated February 24, Mali’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation expressed “surprise” and “indignation,” emphasizing that the country had refused to sign the five-year grant agreement with the U.S. for the past two years.
This revelation raises several pressing questions. Why announce the cancellation of a funding program that had neither been accepted nor implemented for two years?
If the program was inactive, where did these funds actually go? Was this an administrative oversight, or does it point to financial misappropriation? If money continued to be allocated in Mali’s name, who was the real beneficiary?
This situation reflects a broader issue: the political use of international aid. Instead of directly benefiting local populations, aid funds are often diverted to serve hidden agendas, sometimes even fueling instability in sovereign nations.
Given its ongoing security and governance challenges, Mali appears to be caught at the center of such geopolitical maneuvers.
It is imperative for the U.S. State Department to provide full transparency on this matter.
Malians—and Africans more broadly—deserve clear answers about where this money was directed, what the true objectives behind this funding were, and how such an oversight was allowed to persist for two years.
This controversy highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive overhaul of international aid mechanisms.
Development assistance should not be used as a tool of interference or operate under opaque conditions; rather, it must serve as a genuine instrument of partnership based on mutual respect, accountability, and national sovereignty.
Mali’s development and social cohesion should not be manipulated for political gain but upheld as fundamental priorities that genuinely serve its people.
Neil CAMARA
