Opinion: The Trump administration can boost aid impact with localization

The incoming Trump administration has a unique opportunity to advance locally led development, strengthening the impact of United States humanitarian and development programs. Advancing locally led solutions offers a way forward that will not only deliver impactful, sustained outcomes but also reinforce global stability and U.S. national interest. The concept of “localization” has existed in various forms across the global development community and the U.S. government for decades. At its core, it involves shifting decision-making power from international groups to local and national entities that better understand and can better address the needs of the communities where humanitarian and development work occurs. This approach can lead to cost-effective, inclusive, and lasting benefits, ultimately bolstering economic development and international stability. Localization is increasingly critical in the face of shrinking global funding and growing humanitarian needs driven by climate change, conflict, economic instability, and health crises. However, as we approach the ninth anniversary of the Grand Bargain, where humanitarian donors and aid agencies formalized commitments on localization and meaningful participation of affected communities, progress toward these goals has been insufficient. Donor efforts to advance these objectives have been too narrowly focused on direct funding targets and debate over the definition of local and national entities, undermining broader systemic change. This narrow scope has also fueled skepticism about achieving localization goals, as donor governments consistently fall short of their funding targets. The U.S. government has increasingly acknowledged — and must continue to set the tone as a global leader — that there is no silver bullet or one-size-fits-all approach to localization. While increasing resources for and removing barriers to direct local funding is vital, a comprehensive shift in power and ownership to partner countries and communities requires a diverse set of tools. The U.S. must lead by example to create, improve, and deploy all potential approaches in the policy and practice toolbox to foster greater local leadership and power through foreign assistance, even when funding isn’t directly allocated to local and national entities. What does this mean for the Trump Administration? Localization has a legacy of bipartisan support, with initiatives spanning the last three administrations, and bipartisan groups in Congress having introduced legislation to advance localization through USAID reforms. During its first term, the Trump administration launched the Journey to Self-Reliance, or J2SR, which emphasized partnerships with host governments and development entities to achieve locally sustained results, strengthen local capacities, and accelerate enterprise-driven development. In its second term, the administration should expand this work, ensuring all international programming incorporates local leadership and decision-making to generate long-term development and security for partner countries and communities. Here are five recommendations to advance locally led development as part of the incoming administration’s approach to U.S. foreign assistance: 1. Reaffirm USAID’s commitment to directing at least 25% of its funding to local organizations and ensuring that at least 50% of its programs are locally led. While progress on these goals has been slow, the incoming administration must set specific, public targets for both direct local funding and locally led programming to ensure accountability and provide a benchmark for measuring broader progress. Additionally, it should focus on improving progress tracking by enhancing data collection and refining indicators to ensure consistency and reliability. These targets and indicators also help incentivize other donors to consider their own locally led efforts. 2. Invest in innovative approaches and models across the project lifecycle. Based on extensive experience, international NGOs are innovating, testing, and refining alternative models to transfer more power and ownership of programs to local and national entities from start to finish. USAID should prioritize investing in these innovative approaches and providing a better enabling environment to ensure their effectiveness. This approach should include better supporting co-creation with local and national entities by both INGOs and USAID, increasing the use of transition awards, and increasing the flexibility and prevalence of local capacity-strengthening components within awards. 3. Expand considerations of who is a “local partner” beyond well-established NGOs to include nontraditional partners, such as the local private sector. This requires improving the enabling environment for INGOs to partner not only with local and national NGOs or nonprofits but also with the private sector, social enterprises, and other community-based stakeholders. These groups — traditionally less involved in internationally funded work — possess significant expertise and local contextual knowledge, as well as built-in incentives to foster improvements in local markets and systems, particularly the private sector. This approach could build on aspects of both J2SR and the New Partnerships Initiative from the first Trump administration. 4. Advance efforts and promote creative solutions to facilitate locally led humanitarian responses. Local and national entities are often the first responders and ones with the greatest access to populations in need during sudden-onset crises, making them well-positioned to identify and address critical needs in rapidly changing environments. It is therefore essential to channel direct funding to local and national entities in these contexts — including through mechanisms such as pooled funds or cash consortia — and to ensure diverse groups of local and national entities have advisory and decision-making roles within coordination structures like humanitarian country teams and clusters, as well as in the development of humanitarian needs overviews and humanitarian response plans. 5. Reduce barriers within USAID that inhibit direct local funding. USAID has made some progress in recent years to reduce language barriers and support indirect cost recovery to enable more direct partnerships with local and national entities. Further progress is needed, including streamlining capacity-intense, costly, and often prohibitive due diligence processes and reporting requirements. Insufficient staffing at USAID remains a significant barrier to increasing direct local funding. To effectively oversee a greater number of smaller, local, and national entities-led programs, USAID needs increased funding for operating expenses — an account that covers salaries and benefits for direct hires, and other non-project-specific costs. Without adequate funding and staffing, USAID will struggle to meet its direct local funding targets. Addressing this issue requires attention from both the administration and Congress during upcoming government funding debates. There are abundant, relatively low-hanging fruit opportunities to improve efforts and achieve tangible progress in advancing localization with the U.S. government at the forefront. Enacting each of these changes effectively will take time and require strong feedback and guidance from experienced NGO, local entities, and USAID experts. However, with a balanced and blended approach, it is possible to ensure localization shifts are enduring and impactful, taking advantage of the complementary strengths of the full range of development entities. For the Trump administration, expanding its focus beyond direct funding goals to include policies and practices that better facilitate local leadership, power, and decision-making over all U.S. government-funded international programming will be critical. Doing so not only addresses long-standing power imbalances within our sector but also will drive toward stronger self-reliance for communities worldwide.