Yesterday we revealed the USAID programs that survived the Trump administration’s aid freeze, and those that didn’t make the cut. We have now gone line by line (thousands of them) to put meat on the bone and present a deeper, nuanced picture of where we stand today.
Also in today’s edition: Is it too soon to move on from the slash-and-burn phase of the U.S. aid cuts? Meanwhile, over in the U.K., the Brits are dealing with (bad) timing of a different sort.
Listing ship
It’s been a labor of love: Dissecting reams of Excel entries from the most official list — to date — that we have of terminated and active awards in USAID’s bruised-and-battered roster of programs.
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.
Granted, “love” is hardly the term the aid community would use to describe the results, which largely confirm the machete-wielding approach that the Trump administration has taken to foreign aid. But perhaps there’s some power in at least knowing, one way or another, after two months of confusion and chaos — although I highly doubt this list is the end of it.
So, we’ll continue to bring you updated analyses boring into the data and what it means on a practical level. For now, be sure to check out (and bookmark) the continuation of our initial breakdown, which offers an in-depth look at what’s in and what’s out, including:
• The state of America’s global health contributions, from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to the World Health Organization, to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
• The more than 180 severed awards to USAID programs run by United Nations agencies, including the International Organization for Migration, the United Nations Development Programme, and the Food and Agriculture Organization.
• On the flip side, the awards retained for U.N. agencies such as the World Food Programme and the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
• The winning and losing programs among contracting giants such as Chemonics, Tetra Tech, and Credence Management Solutions.
Dive into the analysis: The USAID awards the Trump administration killed — and kept
ICYMI: Who lost the most? The 20 USAID contractors hit hardest (Pro)
+ Listen: For the latest episode of our podcast series, Devex’s David Ainsworth, Adva Saldinger, and Colum Lynch dig into the ins and outs of the data to assess the true scope of the U.S. aid cuts.
Moving on is hard
Is it time to put the tortured past of this aid freeze behind us and move on — hopefully to more stability and overdue reform? Or are we doing everyone a disservice by trying to hastily put that past behind us? Is it even possible amid ongoing turbulence?
Those were some of the central questions asked by a panel of experts, of all political stripes, at a recent Devex Pro briefing, where what comes next was a hotly debated topic.
“We can talk about how this change was done. Was it right? Was it too blunt? We can all argue about that. What I tried to do is focus on where we’re at,” said former U.S. Rep. Ted Yoho, a Florida Republican. “Let’s get back to honoring the contracts that were canceled. Let’s get people back and employed where they need to be, and get rid of the nonsense in some of these programs. And I think if we do that, you're going to see this move rather quickly.”
Not so fast, countered Lisa Bos of InterAction.
“We have lost expertise and staff, not just at USAID, but in some of these countries where you had locally employed staff at NGOs who are not going to come back,” she said. “So I think whatever comes next, there has to be an acknowledgement that turning things on is not going to be easy.”
Read: What’s left, but more importantly, what’s ahead for USAID? (Pro)
+ Not yet a Devex Pro member? Start your 15-day free trial today to access all our expert analyses, insider insights, funding data, exclusive events and career resources, and the Pro Insider — a special Sunday newsletter covering our industry’s big moves for Pro members.
GNI no more
You may have heard that the United Kingdom plans to cut its aid budget from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3%. Well now, according to a letter sent from Development Minister Jenny Chapman yesterday, it will no longer be linked to national income at all, instead having a fixed budget.
“The [Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office] will no longer be automatically exposed to the volatility of GNI fluctuations or [official development assistance] spending by other departments, including demand-driven indonor refugee costs, thereby increasing the predictability of our budgets and allowing us to plan with more certainty.”
While the U.K. Parliament’s International Development Committee chair Sarah Champion said this could potentially represent a “positive step forward” — getting in-donor refugee costs out of the aid budget has been a constant ask from the U.K. aid community — she also said she’s made “very nervous” by the change. That’s probably not helped by Chapman’s announcement that this year’s aid spending will only meet existing commitments, plus full planned allocations for Ukraine, Sudan, Palestinian territories, and British overseas territories. Oh, and a £100 million ($129.4 million) crisis fund.
One thing both the U.K. and U.S. aid cuts seem to have in common is that the public isn’t all that bothered by them. In the U.S., voters consistently assume aid makes up a large chunk of federal spending (for the umpteenth time, it doesn’t) and therefore tend to cheer on cuts.
Likewise, across the pond, the cuts have proven broadly popular with the public, writes Jessica Abrahams for Devex. A YouGov survey earlier this month found that 65% of the U.K. population supported the decision to cut aid in order to boost defense spending, and that support existed among voters across all the main parties.
Read: UK opts to disconnect development from gross national income
ICYMI: Inside the UK aid cuts — what will the 0.3% budget cover? (Pro)
Plus: 6 lessons for the US from the UK's aid department's traumatic demise
+ Join us on Wednesday, April 2, for a conversation with Simon Meier, the head of BII Plus at British International Investment to better understand how to engage with the U.K.’s development finance institution and the opportunities that technical assistance can offer as a critical investment tool. Register now.
Record breaking
The Nutrition for Growth, or N4G, summit in Paris, France, has mobilized more than $27 billion toward ending malnutrition worldwide, French President Emmanuel Macron announced yesterday afternoon. It broke the record set at the previous summit in Tokyo, Japan, in 2021, with more pledges trickling in.
And it’s despite a difficult environment for fundraising, with foreign aid cuts by several Western donors including the United States, United Kingdom, and even the N4G host country. The U.S. did not send a delegation to the summit this year — in 2021 it had pledged $13 million — and the U.K., which hosted the first N4G summit in 2012, did not make a financial commitment but co-launched a coalition on integrating nutrition across sectors. France, the host country, pledged to spend more than $750 million on tackling malnutrition by 2030. A finalized list of pledges is due out later today.
The other big news yesterday was an announcement by a group of philanthropies that committed to spend more than $2 billion on malnutrition. Among them were the Gates Foundation, which committed $750 million; the Rockefeller Foundation, which committed $100 million toward school meals; the Bezos Family Foundation, which pledged to match $500 million in donations to the Child Nutrition Fund; the Eleanor Crook Foundation, which pledged up to $50 million toward scaling up prenatal vitamins; the Asia Venture Philanthropy Network with $10 million; and others.
+ For more content like this, sign up to Devex Dish, a weekly newsletter on the transformation of the global food system.
Oops, never mind
The White House yesterday abruptly withdrew the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations amid fear her departure could weaken the Republican Party’s thin majority in the House of Representatives.
The move leaves a cabinet-level vacancy at the United Nations as the Trump administration is carrying out large-scale cuts across the world body, ending U.S. participation in the U.N. Human Rights Council and severing funding for the U.N. main agency for Palestinian refugees, or UNRWA. On Feb. 4, Trump also ordered a 180-day review of all international organizations, including the United Nations, to determine whether their activities advance U.S. interests.
In other news
An investigation into whether laws were breached in the use of spyware to monitor humanitarian NGOs is underway in Italy. [The Guardian]
South Africa plans to revitalize eight of its biggest cities with $1 billion support from the World Bank. [Bloomberg]
Myanmar was hit by a 7.7 magnitude earthquake, with tremors also felt in neighboring Thailand. [Reuters]
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.
