Presented by International Monetary Fund
This Saturday, Jan. 24, marks exactly one year since we broke the story that broke the aid community. U.S. President Donald Trump had put a halt to U.S. foreign assistance, initiating what would be the end of USAID. It was nothing short of history in the making. So all this week, we’ll be reflecting on the anniversary of that pivotal moment. Today, we start with Congress, which was relegated to the sidelines of the great aid dismantling of 2025. Will it find its voice in 2026?
Also in today’s edition: When news of the stop-work order came down, the World Economic Forum in Davos was in full swing. A year later, the Swiss resort town is again serving as an epicenter of global power, but it’s doing so after a full year of Trump 2.0 creating chaos for established power structures. We’re on the ground all week to bring you the best bits.
I’m not exactly going out on a limb to say that Republican lawmakers have been largely deferential to Trump, their über-influential boss. So it came as a shock that appropriators from both the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives agreed on a compromise bill to fund U.S. foreign assistance to the tune of $50 billion. It’s a 16% drop from last year, but nothing compared to the nearly 50% cut Trump wants.
Last week, the House even passed the compromise bill, overcoming a key hurdle in the process. But the landscape is still littered with minefields — the Senate must pass it and, gulp, Trump must sign it. Even if he does, his administration would have to implement it — and its track record of doing Congress’ bidding isn’t exactly stellar. And even if the bill survives intact, does the State Department, which absorbed USAID, have the capacity to shove all that money out the door?
The obstacles are plenty, but for now, the aid community is basking in a much-needed, albeit tenuous, win.
“We are very pleased to see the bill introduced, and are very pleased to see the levels of spending where they are,” David Cronin of Catholic Relief Services tells my colleague Adva Saldinger, who’s been carefully following the budgetary fine print. “The most important thing from this bill is not even the text itself. It’s the fact that it exists, that it’s been introduced, and that it’s bicameral, bipartisan.”
That text is pretty crucial, though. The bill would not only provide substantial funding for global health and humanitarian assistance, but it would also maintain support for food security, women and girls, education, and water and sanitation. The legislation also includes money for initiatives such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which the administration previously said it wouldn’t support.
So questions naturally abound as to whether the administration will “honor the direction Congress has clearly laid out here,” says Erin Collinson, the director of policy outreach at the Center for Global Development, a D.C.-based think tank. ”There are no assurances that it will actually materialize.”
Still, the proposed package is consequential, says Justin Fugle of Plan International, pointing out that this agreement seems to be “the current Congress and current White House saying this is what we want to do around foreign aid.”
“That’s maybe a little optimistic, but there probably will be some benefits that this compromise has been forged, and everybody’s got things that they want in it.”
Read: $50B US funding bill a welcome surprise, but will it see light of day? (Pro)
ICYMI: US lawmakers strike $50B foreign assistance deal, surpassing Trump's plan
+ Join us on Jan. 21 for a Devex Pro Briefing, where we’ll take a look at the funding bill, what’s in it, and what it took to get to a bill that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate could agree to. Save your spot now. This event is exclusively for Devex Pro members. If you aren’t one yet, you can start your 15-day free trial today.
Will the U.S. reverse course on aid cuts in 2026? Even if it does, Devex President and Editor-in-Chief Raj Kumar argues that the traditional aid model is dead. In his annual predictions piece, he analyzes what might replace it — from development finance institutions to philanthropy — looks at revolutionary disruptions such as artificial intelligence, and debates the new era of transactionalism donors seem to be embracing. Check out the piece here for more.
This week, the World Economic Forum will make headlines publicly and deals privately. That’s just what happens when you accumulate such a mass of power and wealth in one spot. But where does development fit into the mix?
This year’s theme is “Spirit of Dialogue.” Dialogue has certainly been spirited, thanks in part to a fiery Trump administration bursting back onto the global scene, but that may not be what organizers had in mind.
They probably mean the more cooperative, mild-mannered, multilateralist dialogue that now seems like a quaint relic from a distant past. “Dialogue is not a luxury. Dialogue is really a necessity,” insisted WEF’s Børge Brende in a press briefing. “Many of the problems we are still faced with, we need to collaborate on.”
My colleague Elissa Miolene, who’ll be on the frozen ground all week, has an insightful piece that ponders whether WEF will be “less a celebration of global problem-solving than a stress test of it” while raising “questions about whether a week shaped by power, profit, and bargaining still has room for social good.”
Elissa points out the intriguing contradictions: On the one hand, you have the superrich whose money-making principles don’t exactly gel with tackling global poverty. On the other hand, that’s exactly what some of the ultra-wealthy aim to do.
Bringing these disparate worlds together could, at the risk of sounding cheesy, make a difference.
“It’s quite a useful gathering for people who are trying to get deals, to shape narratives, to talk about global public goods, and talk about global issues,” says Rachel Glennerster, president of CGD. “Even if only 5% of it is development, that’s still a lot of conversation, and that’s still useful.”
Read: Davos tests the limits in a world of power, profit, and inequality
+ Are you at Davos this week? Drop Elissa a line – or any news tips – at elissa.miolene@devex.com.
The Trump administration’s announcement that it will withdraw from, or at least deny funding to, 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities, made headlines — Devex being no exception.
It fits neatly into the “America First” narrative of not wasting taxpayer dollars on bureaucratic organizations that often go against American policies, according to the White House.
But just how big a deal are those organizations? That’s a matter of debate, my colleague Colum Lynch writes.
“To be honest, from a non-expert perspective, in terms of a lot of these organizations, I had not heard of them till I read the announcement,” says Charles Kenny of CGD.
Meanwhile, some more well-known ones, such as the U.N. Population Fund, have already seen their funding cut anyway.
It could add up to a big nothing-burger.
“The symbolism of Trump’s executive order is unmistakable. But its practical impact may vary wildly,” says Daniel Forti of the International Crisis Group. “The majority of UN Secretariat entities listed may not face immediate blowback. U.S. diplomats will simply boycott their meetings and reject their reports, but the UN’s work will continue.”
However, while larger U.N. agencies may still receive U.S. funding, it will be dramatically lower than in previous years — and therein lies the potential financial crisis for the world body.
Kenny, for example, says he’s more worried about the impact of U.S. financial cuts on agencies that Trump is not abandoning, as well as America’s growing indebtedness — and the White House’s practice of withholding congressionally approved funds.
“Look, the Congress is going to give a lot more money for this kind of core funding than the administration asked for, assuming the administration chooses to use that money,” he says.
Read: Making sense of the US withdrawal from 66 international organizations
ICYMI: Trump withdraws, defunds dozens of international orgs and treaties
Oxfam warns that global billionaire wealth surged to a record $18.3 trillion in 2025, arguing that extreme concentration of wealth is increasingly translating into unchecked political power. [France 24]
World Bank President Ajay Banga, former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair, and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio are among those invited to sit on the Trump administration’s Board of Peace for Gaza. [BBC]
Balwant Singh, an Oxfam trustee, has quit the charity’s board, accusing it of “cruel and inhumane” treatment of former CEO Halima Begum, and has called for regulatory intervention over its “serious and systemic” governance failures. [The Guardian]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.