Devex Newswire: US Congress defies Trump with $600M for family planning

Democrats in Congress and a few Republicans put up some resistance to U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign aid cuts and rescissions last year — resistance that quickly melted in the face of strong Republican support (or silence, depending on your politics) for their boss. But has Congress found its voice — and on one of the most culturally explosive issues no less?

Also in today’s edition: How have today’s gender wars impacted women entrepreneurs?

+ Water is no longer just a sector — it’s a climate and development priority. With the World Bank recalibrating its approach and a major U.N. summit on the horizon, the pressure is on to close the global water gap. But the old bottlenecks remain. Join us on March 18 for a Devex Pro Briefing with leaders in development finance and policy to explore the innovations and partnerships shaping the future of water governance. Register now.

Family feud

You could view the ironclad backing that Republicans in Congress have given Trump as politically shrewd. After all, there’s power in party unity. Critics view it as kowtowing and unconditional surrender.

That’s why the $50 billion bill Congress passed earlier this year for foreign affairs spending — far more generous than what Trump sought — is so notable. Perhaps even more notable is a $600 million carveout within that package for, of all things, family planning and reproductive health — a political hot potato because it deals with abortion.

That makes it a big no-go for this administration and Republicans writ large. Trump has made his opposition clear by, among other moves, withdrawing from UN Women and the U.N. Population Fund, and expanding the Mexico City Policy to bar organizations from accessing U.S. aid if their activities touch abortion provision, “gender ideology,” or diversity, equity, and inclusion — even if funded by another donor.

So what happens to that $600 million pot of money?

“It is great news for us to see that it’s there,” PAI President Nabeeha Kazi Hutchins tells my colleague Elissa Miolene. But she adds: “We could see money going through different mechanisms, different entities.”

It could go nowhere fast, too.

For example, the State Department’s “America First” global health strategy makes zero mention of family planning, reproductive health care, or maternal health. The term “women” does not even appear.

“If family planning is not formally reflected in implementation frameworks, it will compete for space within health budgets that are being reshaped to meet co-financing obligations tied to named disease priorities,” wrote FP2030, a global partnership focused on family planning.

So for now, those hundreds of millions of dollars exist solely on paper.

“We don’t know if Congress is going to force the administration to spend that money, and if so, will it be spent separately from those global health compacts, or will it be merged in at some point? Still [to be determined],” says Beth Schlachter of MSI Reproductive Choices. “Until Congress grows a backbone, it’s very unlikely [the State Department is] going to do anything with it — and they don’t have the staff to do it anyway.”

Read: US pulls away from family planning. What about the $600M saved for it?

Half the sky

Women entrepreneurs haven’t escaped the fraught politics of gender. Angie Madara experienced them firsthand. She was poised to launch a fund designed to unlock investment in women microentrepreneurs in Africa when the USAID funding she had secured to underpin the project evaporated.

Then other funders said they were on pause as they navigated the Trump administration’s potential threats to philanthropies. Some corporate backers withdrew entirely, saying they were no longer funding inclusion initiatives.

Just a few years ago, investors were “happily on the bandwagon” to expand women’s access to finance, Madara says. “What happened is there is a little bit of fear especially where the U.S. is involved and allies of the U.S. because now they have to sing from the same hymn book. It’s a harder conversation to have now,” she tells my colleague Adva Saldinger.

One interesting case study is the 2X initiative launched in 2018 by the precursor to today’s U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. At the time, it planned to invest $350 million in projects to support women. Where 2X stands at DFC under Trump is a bit muddy — but that doesn’t mean others have abandoned it.

In fact, most development finance institutions now have targets linked to 2X criteria, says Maria Smith of British International Investment, which in 2022 committed to aligning 25% of its new investments with the framework.

“There’s clearly a disappointing movement from the U.S. and I think the domino on that is that there’s been less attention from some other developed markets on gender,” Smith says. “I wouldn’t say following the same retrenchment, but others that aren’t being as proactive or intentional about it.”

Still, she says European DFIs continue to support 2X and women’s equality.

“Where gender might become out of fashion a bit, the actual interventions of helping women’s economic empowerment, the intention is still there,” she says. “I just don’t see it being a permanent trend backwards because it doesn’t make any sense.”

Read: Can the business case save gender-lens investing from political backlash? (Pro)

+ Not a Devex Pro member yet? Unlock the world of global development with a 15-day free trial of Devex Pro, and gain access to expert analyses, an extensive funding database, exclusive events, and our library of members-only content designed to keep you ahead. Check out all our exclusive content.

Broadening your mission

Despite last year’s setbacks, Angie Madara never gave up on her dream to help women entrepreneurs in Africa. She will soon launch a platform connecting banks, angel investors, and family offices with vetted women entrepreneurs running medium-sized businesses in Africa.

She’s like many in the development field who’ve had to adjust to a new reality, but that doesn’t mean necessarily leaving mission-driven careers behind.

Alder Bartlett was among the thousands of USAID workers laid off last year. As her family’s sole earner, Bartlett had to pivot quickly. By July, she landed her new role as chief operating officer with Oregon Housing & Community Services.

“It's hard to begin again,” Bartlett said during a recent Devex Career Briefing. “There’s a big part of me that is so appreciative to have landed in a mission-driven organization, doing work I really believe in [and] supporting an organization that I can really stand behind.”

Her advice? Be creative and open-minded about what mission-driven work can look like. A former USAID colleague, for example, now works for a local train and bus transit company in a role that requires them to think about accessibility. While it’s not global development, there’s a thread of continuity, said Bartlett, as they’re still working to make the world more livable.

“You can find it in more places than you think,” she said, “that mission-driven piece is in a lot of organizations, and it might surprise you.”

Read: How to land your next mission-driven role, from someone who’s done it  (Career)

+ With a Devex Career Account membership, you gain hiring and funding intelligence that reveals where opportunities are emerging and receive targeted recommendations aligned with your strengths and sector trends, so every application counts. Not a Career Account member yet? Start your 15-day free trial today.

Started from the bottom

Shweta Katti was born and raised in a Mumbai brothel. At 18, she went to study abroad, and at 19, she received the U.N. Youth Courage Award. Today, she directs Kranti School, a leadership academy for and run entirely by daughters of sex workers.

She argues that while the aid sector celebrates survivor stories, it rarely funds survivor leadership.

“For years, people around the world have invited me to share my story — how a girl raised in one of India’s most stigmatized communities found her way to global stages,” she writes in an opinion piece for Devex.

But, she adds, “I did not want a life defined by telling my story. I wanted every girl from my community to have the chance to create her own. So I returned to the very place I had once tried so hard to escape.”

Today, Kranti graduates have earned master’s degrees in the U.S. and elsewhere, Katti notes,  while one performed on Broadway.

“None of these outcomes are miracles. And none of them came from rescue. They came from investment, education, and the belief that girls from even the most stigmatized communities can lead,” she writes, arguing that “the world does not need more survivor stories. It needs survivor leadership — and the courage to fund it.”

Opinion: From a brothel to the UN — is the aid sector ready for survivor leadership?

In other news

A leaked State Department memo suggests the Trump administration may cut lifesaving HIV assistance to Zambia as soon as May unless the country signs agreements on mineral access, health spending, and regulatory changes in mining and other industries. [The New York Times]

The European Union is providing €458 million in humanitarian aid to the Middle East, directing the majority to Syria and refugee-hosting nations. [Reuters]

Helping Hand Coalition has removed publicly available content and social media posts following an earlier investigation that documented donations made to the Israel Defence Forces in the occupied West Bank. [The New Humanitarian]

Update, March 17, 2026: This edition has been updated to clarify that the U.S. Congress carveout for family planning and reproductive health is $600 million.  

Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.