Presented by data.org
Will China replace the U.S. as a soft power superpower in the wake of USAID’s demise? That’s one argument the agency’s defenders make to bolster their case that USAID is squarely in America’s national security interests. But is it really that simple?
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.
Also in today’s edition: USAID fellows are left in limbo, small U.K. NGOs are left struggling, and philanthropists are left to step up.
+ Join our live panel on April 7 to discuss the proposed USAID-State Department merger. Experts will cover benefits, downsides, and challenges. Save your spot now.
For years, China’s relationship with the global south has been shaped by its gargantuan Belt and Road initiative — gargantuan as in over $1 trillion spanning nearly 150 countries — which prioritized major infrastructure projects financed by opaque loans.
But in recent years, Beijing has emphasized a “small and beautiful” approach to foreign aid. Think community-based, small-scale, and sustainable projects in sectors such as energy, technology, and health care, my colleague Jesse Chase-Lubitz writes.
So is “small and beautiful” a direct response to USAID’s big, ugly implosion?
China’s recent rhetoric seems to suggest so, with its development agency stating that these projects “demonstrate the humanistic care and kindness of China's foreign aid and international development cooperation.”
Small and beautiful projects include borehole wells for clean water access in Rwanda and solar power for villages in Mali.
“The resurgence of the catchphrase at this particular moment, when the US and other Western countries are pulling back their international development programs, is no accident,” Kate Logan of the Asia Society Policy Institute says. “China is well-aware of the soft power value of its international investments and engagement.”
At the same time, experts say this altruistic awakening is driven by practicality: An economically weakened China is shifting its development focus to be less financially risky, scaling down from debt-ridden infrastructure projects to community projects that can still turn a profit.
“In actuality, China is far from stepping up en masse to fill the vacuum left by USAID and others,” Logan says. “Unless a project is already aligned with Beijing's priorities, China may offer rhetorical support but expect a formal request from a host country government before taking substantive action.”
Read: China's big development projects are getting smaller
ICYMI: The US aid freeze has left a funding gap. What if China steps in? (Pro)
From the archives: How is China's foreign aid changing? (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.
Size-wise, USAID’s Payne Fellowship could be described as relatively small — the program only accepted about 30 fellows each year out of roughly 1,000 applicants. But it played an outsize role in bringing a fresh, diverse pipeline of talent to the agency. Now, it’s on ice and its fellows are in limbo.
Established in 2012, the Payne Fellowship is named after the late Democratic Rep. Donald M. Payne Sr., an advocate for international development and social justice, who was even arrested in 2001 for chaining himself outside the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., in protest of the genocide in Darfur.
The fellowship offered up to $104,000 in scholarships to cover graduate tuition and living stipends as well as two internships — one in Washington, D.C., and another overseas — and, upon graduation, a guaranteed position as a USAID foreign service officer.
As the U.S. Congress debates funding priorities, the fate of the Payne Fellowship and other critical education programs remains up in the air, my colleague Ayenat Mersie writes. For fellows such as Miguel Lua, that means they’re stuck in a holding pattern.
“We’re all game for this still, even given the circumstances,” he says. “Public service is a noble calling, and we actively want to serve the American people.”
He adds: “We represent average American people, and we’re doing this for the American people. We’re serving the American people to put America first.”
Read: Dreams deferred — USAID's dismantling leaves aspiring diplomats in limbo
Across the pond, newly announced U.K. aid cuts are roiling small charities such as Kids Club Kampala, or KCK, which since 2009 has helped over 1.5 million people across slum communities in Uganda.
“It’s literally going to be like life and death, I know it sounds really harsh but some of the kids that we support are probably going to die because they can't access antiretrovirals and they also can't access basic services,” KCK co-founder Olivia Barker White, who is based in London, tells Devex contributing reporter Amy Fallon.
KCK is one of over 2,500 members of the U.K.’s Small International Development Charities Network, or SIDCN — a group of charities with an annual income of less than £500,000 (about $647,000). About 90% of members are based in the United Kingdom, but they work across the world.
Play Action International, a U.K.-based NGO that works in Uganda’s refugee settlements, has yet to fully recover from the last round of U.K. aid cuts at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
“When the cuts came, they weren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet, they meant the abrupt end of life-changing programmes and the betrayal of the very communities we serve,” says Play Action International CEO Murielle Maupoint.
Read: UK small charities brace for crisis amid aid rollback
Devex has obtained a leaked dataset of active and terminated contracts and grants from the U.S. State Department — but Devex Pro Funding Editor Raquel Alcega tells me early analysis suggests the data is riddled with inconsistencies.
More than 100 contracts appear in both the “active” and “terminated” lists, raising doubts about whether these are duplicates, reporting errors, or part of a broader data management issue. For grants, the problems are even more limiting: instead of showing how much funding the U.S. government has contributed, the dataset only includes “cost share” — the portion covered by third parties. That means there’s no way to know how much U.S. funding was actually awarded or cut — and without a clearer view into actual U.S. government funding obligations, any conclusions should come with a big asterisk.
More to come once we finish untangling the duplicates.
ICYMI: The USAID awards the Trump administration killed — and kept
Philanthropists must step up and do more to help the nonprofit sector. That was the message leaders of some of the world’s biggest foundations conveyed at the Skoll World Forum, the annual U.K. gathering for social entrepreneurs.
Those leaders included Jeff Skoll himself — the eBay billionaire who lent his name both to the conference and the Skoll Foundation, Devex Business Editor David Ainsworth tells me.
Eyes at Skoll (the conference) were eagerly trained on Skoll (the man) to see what stance he would take, after recent weeks in which he published a series of complimentary posts on social media platform X praising Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency.
But Skoll told the conference that while it was necessary to generate efficiencies in government, the way those efficiencies had been generated was “careless, callous and inhumane.”
The Skoll Foundation, he said, had created an emergency fund to respond, and increased spending by 30% from previously planned levels.
“We hope this serves as a signal to other funders to increase their grantmaking,” he said.
John Palfrey, president of the MacArthur Foundation, said that his organization was increasing spending from 5% of its endowment each year, to at least 6%.
“It was by unanimous consent that we decided to spend more,” he said. “I think it’s blindingly obvious that everyone must do more in this moment.”
Read: Big foundations say it's time to increase giving
Philanthropy alone can’t bridge the yawning gap between humanitarian need and aid spending. Nor can governments, or the private sector for that matter. Enter public-private-philanthropic partnerships, or the 4Ps.
“It is a holistic model that allows philanthropic initiatives to harness the strengths of public and private sectors to address the world’s more pressing economic and social issues,” writes Ebru Özdemir, chair of Limak Holding and the Limak Foundation, in an opinion piece for Devex.
“While traditional public-private partnerships focus on infrastructure and economic development, the 4Ps model adds a philanthropic element which ensures that initiatives are not just economically viable but also aligned with efforts to facilitate sustainable human development,” she adds, noting that “no single sector holds the answers we need.”
“Governments cannot regulate their way out of a crisis, businesses cannot innovate in isolation, and philanthropy alone cannot close systemic gaps. As we navigate an era of unprecedented challenges and tightened budgets, the need for collaboration has never been clearer.”
Opinion: As aid funding tanks, one partnership model offers stability
Jeremy Lewin, a DOGE staffer appointed at USAID, has a history of racism, misogyny, and violent outbursts. [Rolling Stone]
The U.K.’s Disasters Emergency Committee, which comprises 15 charity organizations, has launched an aid appeal for Myanmar, as the quake-hit country also braces for monsoon season. [BBC]
The humanitarian situation in Yemen further deteriorates as U.S. bombing has begun. [The Guardian]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.