Presented by data.org
We’re continuing to drill into all angles of USAID’s list of terminated and active awards. Today, we look at nonprofits on the struggling end of the spectrum. But first, we also wanted to explain some building blocks so you can better understand the nuances of where the awards actually stand.
Also in today’s edition: The U.S. is already absent from an unfolding disaster zone, and the cautionary tales of other aid agencies’ mergers.
This is a preview of Newswire
Sign up to this newsletter for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development, in your inbox daily.
+ Join us tomorrow, April 2, for a conversation with Simon Meier, the head of BII Plus. He will break down what technical assistance really means in practice — from how it’s structured within investments to the types of support provided. Register now.
We’re obligated to tell you
A lot of people in our space are well-versed in the sometimes-head-spinning jargon of the USAID (and now State Department) machinery. If you’ve ever applied for an award, bravo for wading through it.
But even for those who’ve been through the process, the list recently released to the U.S. Congress containing thousands of entries can be difficult to grasp, so we’ve got an essential primer. Among the caveats to consider:
• Total estimated cost, or TEC: This is the maximum potential value of an award — the ceiling. However, that doesn’t mean the organization is guaranteed to receive the full amount. Awards may ultimately receive less than their ceiling depending on needs and available budgets.
• Obligated amount: This refers to the amount of funding the U.S. government has formally committed to the award. But obligated does not mean paid. It just means that the agency has legally set that money aside for future use. It could have already been disbursed, or it might still be pending payment.
• Unobligated amount: This is the amount not yet committed by the U.S. government. If an award is terminated with funds left unobligated, we treat that as future funding that has been cut. But if the award remains active, that unobligated balance represents only a possibility — not guaranteed funding.
Read: How to read the USAID award terminations data
Nonprofits and loss
Last week, we told you about how for-profit contractors such as Chemonics, DAI, and Tetra Tech fared in USAID’s dramatic downsizing. Today we look at the nonprofits that lost the most in the reshuffling.
In all, my colleague Alecsondra Kieren Si found 23 organizations that will lose $100 million or more in unobligated funding due to terminated awards — from FHI 360 to PATH to Catholic Relief Services. Overall, these organizations will stand to lose around $6 billion in unobligated funding, spanning all sectors.
Read: The 23 USAID nonprofit organizations that lost the most (Pro)
+ Not yet a Devex Pro member? Start your 15-day free trial today to access all our expert analyses, insider insights, funding data, events, and more. Check out all the exclusive content available to you.
First responders
The effects of USAID’s dissolution are already playing out in real time in earthquake-shattered Myanmar, where experts say lives have been lost because of the slow response by the U.S., which normally would’ve been one of the first countries on the disaster scene.
“You could have had a team on the ground very quickly in Mandalay [the epicenter],” says Phil Robertson, director of Asia Human Rights and Labour Advocates Consultancy, explaining that the first 72 hours after any disaster are critical to finding survivors. “Certainly you would have seen more people being brought out of buildings [and] you would have seen more people receive lifesaving medication and assistance.”
Though the government has long restricted access to aid, Myanmar’s military leadership has now asked for international funding, a sign of just how severe the tragedy is, Devex contributor Rebecca Root writes. Many have met that call, including the governments of the United Kingdom, Thailand, and the European Union, alongside international NGOs such as Save the Children, Water Mission, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
But experts say the recent dismantling of USAID, a historical leader in emergency response, bogged down relief efforts.
“USAID is traditionally on the front line of the U.S. government’s response to a humanitarian disaster such as the Myanmar earthquake, but with Trump having largely dismantled the agency, he has crippled Washington’s ability to respond to people in desperate need of humanitarian aid,” Kenneth Roth, former Human Rights Watch executive director, tells Rebecca.
As Robertson puts it: “The leaders are now the laggards.”
Read: USAID cuts hinder Myanmar earthquake response
State of play
Not everyone has come to grips with USAID’s demise and its absorption into the Department of State, but one USAID staffer who was fired writes that “the best outcome for USAID at this point is for this merger to happen strategically and intentionally to retain America’s soft power globally.”
That in large part rests on the recognition that diplomacy and development are two very different animals. For example, USAID staff spend years in the field building partnerships. State Department tour lengths are shorter and focus on reporting political developments, not cultivating long-term development objectives.
“The U.S. political calendar, with its potential political and/or administration shifts every two to four years, threatens the kind of patient, consistent approach that is the cornerstone of effective development,” the author, who was granted anonymity to write freely, argues in an opinion piece for Devex.
A marriage between USAID and the Department of State also entails looking at the lessons that the U.K., Canada, and Australia learned when they abolished their independent aid agencies and folded them into larger entities.
Among them: Ensure a thoughtful, strategic, and patient transition process; create a new foreign aid entity, instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole; and maintain consistent messaging.
“As we prepare to administer aid from within DOS, if we hope to continue our impact, we have much to learn from the experience of our friends and partners,” the author writes. “But let’s be clear-eyed about what we’re giving up. Despite the patient and strategic approach that the U.K., Canada, and Australia deployed, the impact of their development programming was diminished.”
Opinion: USAID can maintain its impact amid a transition to DOS
Deutsch disagreement
As we keep pointing out, it’s not just the Americans spurning foreign aid. The trend has been widespread across Europe — and right now it’s dividing Germany’s two largest political parties.
The center-left Social Democratic Party wants aid to constitute “at least 0.7% of GNI,” aligning with the goal endorsed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. But the larger conservative Christian Democratic Union is arguing for deeper cuts, according to a partial draft of the coalition contract leaked to Politico.
After agreeing to large spending increases for defense, infrastructure, and climate this month, the likely next chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, is under pressure to prove his dedication to fiscal prudence, my colleague Jesse Chase-Lubitz writes.
In the meantime, politicians are debating whether the country's main development agency, BMZ, should be merged into the ministry for foreign affairs.
Sound familiar?
Like the mergers that have taken place in other countries and now the U.S., the concern is that aid will get gobbled up and sidelined by the larger foreign policy apparatus.
Former Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul tells Jesse that an independent BMZ is “indispensable.”
“We’ve seen it in other countries: whenever development policy has been folded into foreign affairs ministries, it has led to a decline in quality, reduced scope, and a significant loss of reputation and trust in partner countries,” she says. “Development policy is not a subcategory of foreign policy or geopolitics — it is a distinct field that requires its own expertise, focus, and institutional weight.”
Read more: Germany's coalition government still haggling over aid spending (Pro)
In other news
Former Chinese finance vice-minister Zou Jiayi has been nominated to replace Jin Liqun as the next head of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. [SCMP]
French President Emmanuel Macron has pledged to defend science and advocate for ocean protection as the country hosts this year’s U.N. Oceans Conference. [Le Monde]
The U.N. General Assembly has extended the Decade of Action on Nutrition, originally spanning 2016-2025, to 2030 to sustain global efforts to end all forms of malnutrition and align with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. [WHO]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.
About the author
Anna Gawel
Anna Gawel is the Managing Editor of Devex. She previously worked as the managing editor of The Washington Diplomat, the flagship publication of D.C.’s diplomatic community. She’s had hundreds of articles published on world affairs, U.S. foreign policy, politics, security, trade, travel and the arts on topics ranging from the impact of State Department budget cuts to Caribbean efforts to fight climate change. She was also a broadcast producer and digital editor at WTOP News and host of the Global 360 podcast. She holds a journalism degree from the University of Maryland in College Park.
