Presented by International Monetary Fund
Last January, when the Trump administration put a hard stop to U.S. foreign assistance — past, present, and future — a flurry of lawsuits followed. In the ensuing year, results have been mixed as those lawsuits ricocheted across U.S. courts. Today, plaintiffs are still hoping for legal vindication — with billions at stake.
Also in today’s edition: From the courtroom to the Alps, we check on the World Economic Forum in Davos.
+ Will the Trump administration follow Congress’ foreign aid vision? Join us on Jan. 21 for a Devex Pro Briefing where we’ll discuss what Congress wants U.S. foreign assistance to look like with Lisa Bos of InterAction, Erin Collinson of Center for Global Development, Christy Gleason of Save the Children US, and James Kunder of Kunder/Reali Associates. Save your spot now.
For those unfamiliar with the U.S. judicial system, it’s slow. We’re talking John Cage’s “As Slow As Possible,” Clock-of-the-Long-Now slow. This deliberative approach is integral to America’s constitutional checks and balances and can be fruitful for some, frustrating for others — certainly frustrating for those clobbered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s out-of-nowhere aid freeze.
“The stop-work orders were kind of the proverbial ‘oh shit’ moment,” says Mitchell Warren, head of AVAC. “I remember sitting there … and thinking: this is going to destroy an ecosystem that’s taken us decades to build.”
AVAC promptly lost a third of its projected revenue and was forced to lay off 15 staff members. Its board went into crisis mode, debating whether to fight back and risk retribution or take a more under-the-radar approach.
The board unanimously decided to stick its neck out — and on Feb. 10, AVAC became the lead plaintiff in one of the largest foreign aid lawsuits in U.S. history. As my colleague Elissa Miolene writes, over the next 11 months, that case, along with others, would ping-pong across the legal system, twice reach the Supreme Court, and force a fundamental constitutional question: Can the president refuse to spend money that Congress has already approved?
So what’s the answer? TBD.
There were early victories for the plaintiffs — which the administration preempted by slashing 10,000 projects seemingly overnight. Eventually, however, some money — or, more accurately, back pay — began to flow.
But the administration was unrelenting, plowing ahead with its fundamental rethink of U.S. foreign aid while waiting the plaintiffs out.
“The hardest part of this was realizing that the case won’t be the savior of things,” says Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, president of the Global Health Council, another plaintiff. “We all went in with hope that there would be this injunction, and that would stop it, that would reverse it. But really soon, it became clear that this was going to be a long battle.”
Today, AVAC’s case is still winding its way through the courts and is likely to end up back at the Supreme Court.
“The lesson we’ve learned through all of this is that the administration moves with reckless abandon, while the courts move slowly and methodically,” Warren says. “And Congress moves not at all.”
While he admits he’s exhausted, Warren says he’s undeterred. “There are days where I think: Screw it. I’m done. This is hard,” he says. “But I am not going to give anybody that satisfaction.”
Read more: Fighting for billions — the legal battle to keep US foreign aid alive (Pro)
Related: The latest on the USAID docket
+ We're tracking the impact on global development as the Trump administration continues its efforts to reshape government policies and priorities. Check out our regularly updated Trump aid cuts tracker.
Artificial intelligence is front and center on Davos’ alpine agenda this week. But for all the high-level talk, how can AI tangibly benefit front-line services and local institutions on the ground?
That’s the question posed by Simon O'Connell, CEO of the global development partner SNV, in an opinion piece for Devex.
“SPGs are the paradigm beyond ODA,” he declares, referring to the well-known acronym for official development assistance and the lesser-known one for shared productivity gains.
He writes that these gains — time saved, costs reduced, accuracy improved — need to be verified, create value, and explicitly (and contractually) shared to turn “digital dividends into development outcomes.”
“AI should also augment front-line work rather than displace it. Used well, it can free nurses, teachers, and caseworkers from administrative tasks, giving them time to improve quality and reach,” he writes. “Those gains need to be tracked and deliberately reinvested, alongside far greater transparency on spending, performance, and who benefits, with independent checks built in.”
“For Davos, action means moving from broad statements to practical commitments,” he adds, noting that governments, donors, and institutions should agree that a defined share of AI-driven efficiency gains is reinvested in front-line services and local capability.
Opinion: As AI rises and aid declines, can Davos shape a new compact for development?
Before the conference even began, the World Economic Forum and McKinsey & Company released their annual Global Cooperation Barometer, a pulse check of how the world is — or is not — working together.
Let’s just say it didn’t make for reassuring reading. Multilateralism is under strain, conflicts have intensified, and trade barriers have escalated, with the pillar for peace and security plummeting for the ninth consecutive year. In fact, the barometer reports a “retreat from global multilateralism” as a whole, noting that peacekeeping activities, health aid, and multilateral resolutions dropped by more than 20% from 2019 to 2024 — i.e., even before the Trump administration took a sledgehammer to USAID.
That’s all led to a shift in cooperation, McKinsey Global Institute’s Tiago Devesa explains, with a rise in what the barometer called “minilateralism” — when smaller groups of countries work through specific, interest-based coalitions that target a particular goal.
“As you turn the Rubik’s Cube, there’s new combinations that open up,” says Devesa, a senior fellow at the institute. “It takes a little bit of pragmatism to navigate this new world, but there are opportunities there that might not have been open before in a more static system.”
One of the United Kingdom’s largest aid charities, Oxfam GB, finds itself at war — with itself.
It became embroiled in controversy after the departure of former chief executive Halima Begum, whose leadership had been criticized by some employees, according to a review undertaken by Oxfam’s board, which “unanimously decided there had been an irretrievable breakdown” in its trust and confidence in Begum, and that her ongoing employment was untenable.
While some criticized her leadership style, others praised it — and even intimated that racism and misogyny were involved in Begum’s ouster. All of it has led to a schism at the NGO that has prompted yet another independent review — this time of the board and how it handled the allegations against Begum, writes Devex contributing reporter Susannah Birkwood.
Oxfam says the review will not revisit the board’s decision to end Begum’s employment, but will “establish an accurate picture of events.” That’s left some unsatisfied — and feeling rudderless.
“The most obvious governance failure we have at the moment is that the board gets to decide who now investigates them,” a source tells Devex. “At a time when there are serious questions about the board’s own suitability for office, it is hard for staff to see how trust can be restored without stronger external intervention.”
The source adds that the organization had become “so dysfunctional that it’s become a kind of civil war within Oxfam.”
Read: ‘Civil war’ within Oxfam GB as CEO exit triggers board review (Pro)
ICYMI: Battle lines drawn in UK aid sector over sacking of Oxfam CEO (Pro)
+ Not a Devex Pro member yet? Start your 15-day free trial today and explore expert analyses, unlock hidden funding opportunities, connect with key players at exclusive events, and access a wealth of knowledge you won’t find anywhere else. Check out all the exclusive content available to Pro members.
French President Emmanuel Macron has declined the invitation to join the Trump administration’s Board of Peace in Gaza over concerns it could undermine the United Nations. [Politico]
Despite cofounder Bill Gates’ public commitments to divestment, the Gates Foundation Trust maintains $254 million in fossil fuel holdings, with the value of the investments rising since 2015. [The Guardian]
Yemen’s humanitarian crisis could deteriorate this year as deep funding cuts reverse progress in health and nutrition, leaving millions more in need and heightening the risk of disease outbreaks. [Reuters]
Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.