Presented by Pivotal Ventures
Consent is hot, but funding is not.
That line kept running through my head as I walked past a giant pink condom by Profamilia greeting attendees to Bogotá’s Ágora Convention Center — home this week to the seventh International Conference on Family Planning.
The place is buzzing. Advocates are making the case for family planning and sexual and reproductive health rights as backlash grows in some parts of the world. The International Planned Parenthood Federation — one of the largest global organizations working on sexual and reproductive health rights — used the moment to unveil its new fiery red branding, a bold visual clapback to those trying to silence SRHR organizations.
But behind all the buzz and color, questions about money remain.
According to the latest data, the loss of USAID funding will strip family planning programs of roughly $600 million a year — about 41% of total global funding.
That’s not all. The sector’s other top donors are also reducing their aid budgets, which could mean further cuts to family planning funding or stagnant budgets for it.
But advocates are refusing to back down. Yes, there is wide recognition of the funding cuts, but governments and organizations are also exploring partnerships, innovative financing, and ways to incentivize more countries to raise domestic resources.
While donor pledges have been scarce at the conference, government ministers from the global south are stepping up with funding commitments drawn from their own domestic resources. At a plenary session on Wednesday, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s minister of gender, family, and children announced a $5 million commitment for contraceptives each year until 2028, while Zambia’s health minister said his government is scaling up its domestic resources for family planning commodities from $130,000 in 2021 to $7.5 million in 2026.
And so while the reality of donor funding is looking uncertain, “it also cannot define the next chapter of our movement,” said Dr. Samukeliso Dube, executive director of Family Planning 2030.
And amid the pushback against SRHR, “we push forward,” she said.
Read: Family planning faces 'funding emergency' as top donors cut aid budgets
The boss means business
Steering an organization through deep funding cuts and fierce pushback against family planning and sexual and reproductive health rights — the very core of the U.N. Population Fund’s mission — is no job for the faint-hearted.
But Diene Keita, UNFPA’s new executive director, is taking the challenges head-on.
I caught up with Keita this week, just ahead of the conference’s official kickoff. She spoke candidly about her biggest worry — misinformation and disinformation clouding UNFPA’s work — and her determination to mobilize more resources in the year ahead. One way she plans to do that is through partnerships, including with development finance institutions and the private sector.
“What we are trying to do is see what is successful to [a partner] that can be a win-win for us. And the private sector … if they can make their money while being a philanthropist and saving lives, that’s where we go,” she said.
This will be crucial given that the agency is facing funding losses from the United States, one of its top donors over the years. While Keita said the agency is currently in a good financial position, it’s expecting a decline in its core resources, or unrestricted donor contributions, from $379.5 million in 2024 to $345 million in 2025.
Keita isn’t so concerned about the U.N. secretary-general’s proposal to merge UNFPA and UN Women. But she hopes the U.S. government does not further expand the “global gag rule” — which prohibits foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive U.S. funding from providing or advocating for abortion services — to include entities promoting “gender ideology” or initiatives supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“I hope it will not happen,” she told me. But if the U.S. decides to expand the rule, UNFPA will double down on explaining to countries what it does, she said.
“I truly believe that if people knew what we do really, we won’t be talking about this,” she said. “Everything else is politics.”
Read: Fighting for facts and funding — UNFPA’s new chief steps into the storm
Related: The winners and losers of ‘America First’ foreign aid (Pro)
+ Dive deep into the future of U.S. foreign aid. Devex Senior Reporter Michael Igoe’s special Saturday Devex Pro Insider will bring you analysis and answers to the biggest questions surrounding U.S. aid. This newsletter is exclusively for Devex Pro members. Not yet a Devex Pro member? Start your 15-day free trial today.
Show me the outcomes
Here’s one group trying to shake up how SRHR gets funded.
Tiko, a South African nonprofit, unveiled its new Girls’ Outcomes Platform this week — an effort to scale outcomes-based financing models across Kenya, South Africa, and potentially the rest of the continent. Instead of paying for activities or inputs, the approach ties funding to verified, measurable results.
What’s different here is that Tiko isn’t counting solely on traditional donors. The model brings in private philanthropy and domestic government funds, which, according to cofounder Benoit Renard, helps guarantee local ownership.
It’s an innovative idea at a time when donor funding for reproductive health is shrinking. And it’s already drawing attention: Bridges Outcomes Partnerships has put up $10.1 million in upfront funding, while the Joint SDG Fund and the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation have agreed to repay Bridges once the agreed outcomes are met, reports my colleague Elissa Miolene.
Read: Roofshots, moonshots, and innovation in a sector under threat
Clarity, with a side of confusion
Many of the shifts in the family planning space were driven by funding cuts and policy changes from the U.S., the global health sector’s largest bilateral donor.
Your next job?
Technical Advisor, Sustainable Health Financing
Clinton Health Access Initiative
Rwanda
In September, the U.S. State Department finally rolled out its long-awaited “America First” global health strategy — laying out how Washington envisions working with other countries on health. The plan emphasizes striking direct deals with national governments and helping them take greater ownership of their health programs. It also calls for increased collaborations with the private sector and faith-based groups — and a step back from traditional NGO partnerships.
The strategy’s release offered a bit of clarity after months of guessing what the new administration actually plans to do in global health. And while concerns remain, some experts see bright spots — particularly its emphasis on helping long-time aid recipients move toward greater self-reliance.
Still, plenty of concerns remain. For one, family planning doesn’t appear anywhere as a priority. And experts are questioning how the strategy can actually be implemented, given that only a small fraction of USAID’s global health experts are still within the State Department.
Read: ‘America First’ in global health — oxymoron or opportunity?
Read more: The promise and pitfalls of an ‘America First’ global health strategy (Pro)
+ ICYMI, we launched a new series on The Future of Global Health, which digs into the ripple effects of foreign aid cuts and the search for a new path forward. Check out the series.
Bearing witness
“The continued claim of the [Trump] administration is that there’s no harm done, and that aid is getting to people where it’s necessary, and it’s absolutely not true.”
— Atul Gawande, former assistant administrator for the Bureau of Global Health, USAIDGawande has been vocal about the Trump administration’s dismantling of USAID — and he’s still speaking out. At a recent film festival in Washington, D.C., he did just that while premiering “Rovina’s Choice,” a documentary he executive-produced that follows a mother’s struggle to keep her malnourished daughter alive in Kenya’s Kakuma refugee camp.
By juxtaposing claims from Washington with scenes from Kakuma, the documentary exposes the gap between reality and rhetoric — directly challenging the Trump administration’s claims that no children are dying as a result of USAID’s funding cuts.
“I could write about it, and people were hearing the numbers and statistics, but you needed to see people and hear the voices of people who now are making choices about what they have to do in the face of a suddenly devastated landscape,” Gawande said during the film’s premiere.
Read: ‘You cannot fight an invisible problem’ — Atul Gawande on US aid cuts
What we’re reading
The World Health Organization has issued guidance on how countries can address funding cuts to global health. [The Hindu]
Three people have died at a community center on the outskirts of Dakar, Senegal, after failing to receive HIV treatments following U.S. government funding cuts. [The Independent]
The High Court of Malawi affirmed that minor survivors of violence have a legal right to safely terminate their pregnancies. [People’s Gazette]
About the author
Jenny Lei Ravelo@JennyLeiRavelo
Jenny Lei Ravelo is a Devex Senior Reporter based in Manila. She covers global health, with a particular focus on the World Health Organization, and other development and humanitarian aid trends in Asia Pacific. Prior to Devex, she wrote for ABS-CBN, one of the largest broadcasting networks in the Philippines, and was a copy editor for various international scientific journals. She received her journalism degree from the University of Santo Tomas.
