Presented by Goodstack x Adobe for Nonprofits
In a charged day on Capitol Hill, Republicans in Congress advanced a tougher, more transactional approach to U.S. foreign policy. They fought to slash aid, restrict global health funding, and reshape the U.N. to align with American interests. Democrats pushed back, warning of moral, diplomatic, and strategic costs.
Also in today’s edition: Amid the congressional sparring, a ray of light emerged for supporters of HIV programming.
+ Happening today at 9:30 a.m. ET (3:30 p.m. CET): What does it take to partner with Dutch development bank FMO on technical assistance? Find out by joining our Devex Pro Briefing.
Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives laid out vastly different visions of what America’s foreign policy should look like in a hearing yesterday that examined the reorganization of the U.S. Department of State. It included jabs by Republicans at global health spending, as they questioned why the U.S. should keep pouring billions into HIV programs in Africa when those same governments often defy U.S. power at the United Nations.
“These were some of the biggest recipients of PEPFAR,” said Rep. Brian Mast, “and they were giving the United States of America the least amount of support.” Mast added that if U.S. diplomats are not aware of that pattern, then they are “just being delusional” about the failures of America’s soft power.
Democrats were stunned. Rep. Brad Sherman summed up Mast’s view as: “People in Africa should die of AIDS until their government changes how they vote in the United Nations” — calling it one of the “most outrageous” things he’d ever heard.
Rep. Ami Bera hit back: “Even if their governments don’t vote for us — we don’t want to see kids die. Is that who we are?” He added: “I don’t want to be China. I don’t want to be Russia. The way they operate is purely transactional, and they don't do it for the betterment of the world.”
Read: Lawmakers spar over ‘transactional’ U.S. aid strategy
+ On July 23, Devex will sit down with Gates Foundation CEO Mark Suzman at a pivotal juncture for global development. We’ll explore what the next two decades will look like for one of the world’s most influential philanthropies. Please submit any questions you’d like us to include in our conversation to editor@devex.com. Save your spot now.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, President Donald Trump’s multibillion-dollar rescissions package moved one step closer to becoming reality, with Vice President JD Vance casting the final vote to break a 50-50 tie on Tuesday night to clear procedural obstacles.
The vote came after hours of debate by Senate lawmakers, which resulted in three of the chamber’s Republicans — Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski — voting against the package, alongside every Democrat.
All three lawmakers had previously voiced concerns with the $9.4 billion package, especially as it related to cuts to PEPFAR, the country’s flagship HIV/AIDS program. By Tuesday afternoon, the White House’s budget chief, Russell Vought, told reporters that a proposed $400 million cut to PEPFAR had been removed from the package — but that wasn’t enough to carry McConnell, Collins, and Murkowski over to the finish line.
Billions of dollars in previously approved foreign aid remain at stake, from hundreds of millions in support for U.N. agencies to billions of dollars in development, economic, and humanitarian assistance.
“Peace through strength means more than just saying it. It means actually demonstrating it,” said McConnell, speaking at a Senate hearing late last month. “That’s just a fact: that soft power, at very little expense, goes a long way.”
Lawmakers immediately went into another round of votes to begin formally debating the package — the second step in the process — and in a tie broken again by Vance, that passed around 10 p.m.
Any changes they make will need to be approved by the House of Representatives before Friday. If the lawmakers miss that deadline, the rescissions request will expire, and the money will have to be spent as originally intended.
Related reading:
• Trump’s $9.4B rescission package targets ‘woke’ and ‘wasteful’ aid
• Trump budget request and rescission plan slashes global health funding
It was a busy day in both chambers of Congress. Back in the House, Republicans on the appropriations subcommittee, charged with coming up with the foreign assistance budget, approved a bill for fiscal year 2026 funding, despite objections from Democrats.
The bill cuts foreign assistance by 22% from fiscal 2025-enacted levels, with humanitarian aid and multilateral assistance seeing significant reductions, Devex Senior Reporter Adva Saldinger tells me.
“We are laser-focused on reining in years of out-of-control, wasteful spending that characterized the previous administration,” Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, a Republican from Florida who chairs the subcommittee, said at the markup of the bill.
The top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Lois Frankel from Florida, had a different take, calling the $13 billion reduction “deep” and “devastating” as she opposed the bill, which she called “a reckless, short-sighted blueprint for American retreat.”
The cuts would gut development and economic support, including education, clean water, food, conflict prevention, and more, she said, highlighting that a 42% cut in humanitarian assistance is “not just unwise, it’s inhumane.”
ICYMI: White House defends $9.4 billion clawback amid Senate concerns
Mike Waltz, Trump’s nominee for U.N. ambassador, got a grilling from Senate Democrats over his honesty and past conduct during a charged confirmation hearing.
Waltz pledged to refocus the U.N. on peace and security, cut climate programs he called “duplicative,” and dismantle UNRWA, the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees. “We can make the U.N. great again,” he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But Democrats hammered him over a past incident involving sensitive military info shared via Signal, Devex Senior Global Reporter Colum Lynch writes. “There was no classified information … on that chat,” he insisted.
Sen. Cory Booker wasn’t buying it: “I’ve seen you not only fail to stand up, but lie. … It also, to me, just shows profound cowardice.”
Waltz shot back: “The last thing [those I led in combat] would call me is a coward.”
Despite the clashes, Republicans backed him — and his confirmation looks likely.
Read: Dem accuses Trump UN nominee of lying and ‘profound cowardice’
The United Kingdom is slashing its aid budget to just 0.3% of national income by 2027 — its lowest in almost 30 years. But behind the headlines, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has kept its contracting engine running.
In fiscal year 2024-25, FCDO awarded 989 contracts worth £1 billion — about 65% of that went to development, up significantly from the year before. Operational contracts, such as embassy refurbishments and IT, made up the rest, Devex data analyst Miguel Antonio Tamonan writes.
The top 10 suppliers — all based in the U.K. — took home £604.4 million, or over 90% of development spending. Six of them are U.K. arms of U.S.-headquartered firms such as Palladium, DAI, and Tetra Tech. The only nonprofit in the group? FHI 360.
Read: FCDO's top development contractors in 2024/25 (Pro)
Related: Inside the UK aid cuts — what will the 0.3% budget cover? (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.
Up to a fifth of the U.K. budget will be spent on providing support and accommodation for refugees domestically once proposed aid cuts are in force, according to a report published today by the Independent Commission on Aid Impact.
The U.K. spent £2.8 billion on what is commonly referred to as in-donor refugee costs, or IDRC, in 2024 — around 20% of all aid. Even that is a fall from the £4.3 billion the year before, when it consumed almost 28%.
Costs are expected to drop substantially in the coming years, largely due to a decision to end the expensive practice of accommodating asylum seekers in more than 400 hotels, Devex Business Editor David Ainsworth tells me. U.K. aid organizations have been highly critical of their government's spending on refugees for many years, and they renewed that criticism following the ICAI report.
“This confirms what we have long feared,” says Adrian Lovett, executive director for the U.K., Middle East, and Asia Pacific for the ONE Campaign. “UK aid is being stretched to breaking point. While it’s right that refugees are housed in safe accommodation, paying for this from the diminished international aid budget means there will be even less support for the world’s most vulnerable people at a time of growing global need.”
Background reading:
• UK incorrectly claims it is forced to use aid budget on refugee hotels
• UK aid spending on refugee hotel bills soars to £3.2 billion
Global health funding is set to drop to $39 billion — the lowest in 15 years — due to steep donor cuts, according to a Lancet study. [Barron’s]
Geneva, the Swiss city where many U.N. agencies and international organizations are headquartered, has opened job clinics to help people who were put out of work by sweeping layoffs due to budget cuts. [Politico]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.