Trump 2.0: Fears, hopes, and takeaways for concerned development pros

Since President Donald J. Trump won his bid to return to the White House in early November, there has been much speculation in the global development community on what it could mean for organizations and their staff in 2025 and beyond. “There are a lot of potential challenges to the way business has typically been done, and potentially a lot of shakeups,” Caroline Korda Poole, career development coach, noted during a Devex career event held shortly after the election, referencing reforms that could reshape public health efforts. Based on policy decisions made during Trump’s first term as U.S. president and actions already taken in his second, Devex has reported on wide-ranging concerns within the sector. These include the downsizing of programs, such as those related to climate change and reproductive health, as well as those funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. With many INGOs already contending with increasing budget constraints and donor fragmentation, the anxiety is understandable. However, as many veteran development professionals can attest, not all feared workforce scenarios play out as expected or affect staff in equal measures. Even for those directly impacted by a policy decision, a proactive and resilient mindset can go a long way. “Always bring yourself back to what you can do and contribute to, versus the roiling dark and noisy clouds — and build new, strong relationships with people who share your mission and values — and hold them tight,” Kathy Baughman McLeod, CEO of Climate Resilience for All, said in an interview. With the new U.S. administration now underway, here’s what we know about possible implications for development professionals working in three key spaces, along with potential silver linings and guidance for what may lie ahead. This is based on Devex reporting since Trump’s election win, plus additional interviews with sector experts. Climate change Worries: As countries continue to face the urgent need for climate action, the political swing back to Trump and the Republicans will likely slow progress on global climate action. As he did in his first term, Trump has already moved to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which will eliminate U.S. emissions targets and could spark a global domino effect of other nations walking back their commitments. Trump may also stop U.S. contributions to the Green Climate Fund, as he did previously, and some experts are concerned that he’ll attempt to quit UNFCCC, the international treaty responsible for coordinating the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol. Silver linings: “A withdrawal from the Paris accord will be an even stronger signal to focus on local jurisdictions and community organizations and action,” McLeod said, emphasizing that even if there is a pullback in global policy commitments or international cooperation, philanthropy will take on a larger role in addressing challenges. Additionally, organizations with a strong presence in local communities and smaller geographic areas are expected to grow and achieve greater success and impact in their efforts, she said. Outside of the U.S., global efforts should continue to shape job demand in sectors like renewable energy, carbon markets, and green finance. “The Paris Agreement will remain the engine of global climate action long after his final term in office,” Bill Hare, CEO of NGO Climate Analytics, told Devex. Takeaway: For climate professionals, there are enough signals to suggest a sustained demand for skills and expertise in renewable energy and sustainable infrastructure, even amid shifting political landscapes — and in areas traditionally less aligned with federal climate initiatives. However, in light of the national political landscape for those in the U.S., McLeod recommended that workers emphasize climate justice, adaptation, and gender equity in their work where possible to broaden potential climate-adjacent career options. Reproductive health Worries: The reenactment of the global gag rule, which prohibits U.S. family planning funding to organizations that provide abortion services or information, coupled with rollbacks in climate policy, could jeopardize the sexual and reproductive health and rights, or SRHR, of millions of women and girls worldwide, Katie Tavenner, a gender consultant working with organizations including GIZ, the German development agency, and the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, said in an interview. There is also the potential of a second withdrawal of all U.S. funding for the United Nations Population Fund, or UNFPA, which is the primary U.N. agency focusing on global family planning. But a growing concern is that these restrictions could extend to all foreign assistance funding, with wide-reaching implications for organizations focused on reproductive health and women’s rights. “These policy shifts will heighten vulnerabilities, particularly in regions facing extreme climate impacts, such as droughts, floods, and displacement, by undermining women’s resilience and limiting their ability to adapt to climate challenges or participate in recovery efforts,” Tavenner said. Silver linings: If these significant funding cuts are enacted, reproductive health work could forge ahead through collaboration with alternative donors to sustain operations. “Greater collaboration with regional actors will be essential to bypass U.S.-based funding limitations and ensure critical services continue,” Tavenner said. Some organizations, such as MSI Reproductive Choices, have made diversifying funding a priority. “Rallying new supporters and broadening the pool of donors means we can better withstand funding shocks and regressive anti-rights efforts,” Beth Schlachter, MSI’s senior director of U.S. external relations, wrote in a Devex opinion piece. Takeaway: Reproductive health professionals are likely to see changes in the landscape of available roles, with work increasingly focused on collaborating with alternative donors to sustain operations. At the same time, they may need to double down on advocacy efforts to maintain focus on SRHR in increasingly restrictive environments, Tavenner said, especially with the likelihood of fewer resources and more obstacles. McLeod recommended that workers in this space focus on clarifying what they’re trying to achieve and aligning their goals with people, organizations, and brands they trust. “They should also spend time building and refining their network and prioritize organizations run by women,” she said. US foreign aid Fears: Much remains uncertain about the future of USAID and its implementing partners, including who will run the agency and the exact nature of potential funding freezes and policy reviews. An executive order has already been issued to pause foreign assistance spending for 90 days to review existing programs. Those related to politically sensitive issues such as family planning and climate are likely the most vulnerable in the short term, experts have speculated. Trump attempted to cut USAID’s budget by one-third in his first term, which was thwarted by a Congress that the Republicans now have full control over. “This transition has the potential to be more disruptive than some,” David Berteau, president and CEO of the Professional Services Council, told Devex. Silver linings: Political changes — especially in donor countries like the U.S. — typically take time to ripple through the sector. “Most implementers’ funding is set for a year or two, and that doesn’t get disrupted,” George Ingram, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former senior USAID official, told Devex. Meanwhile, when funding decreases in some areas, it is often redirected elsewhere, Thomas Hill, country director for Nigeria at the Norwegian Refugee Council, said during a November careers event. “You can bet that whatever the political priorities are, that's where the money will go,” he said. Beneficiaries in the development sector may include The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, or DFC, which started during Trump’s first term and experienced massive growth tied to its focus on private sector investment and harsh stance on China. Faith-based organizations may also prosper. Other initiatives, like the push to channel more U.S. aid to local organizations, could also gain momentum. Kate Phillips-Barrasso, who leads Mercy Corps’ global policy and advocacy, made the case in a Devex opinion piece for a possible boon for localization under Trump. Takeaway: For those worried about the future of certain USAID-funded programs, “the biggest concern should be in year two or three, where policy changes start to be implemented in programs and funding," Ingram said. If this holds true, those tied to existing projects should be able to avoid any abrupt disruptions. However, Devex reported that Trump’s recent aid freeze came as a surprise to many, illustrating the unprecedented nature of this administration. Many questions remain unanswered, including whether it could apply to funding from the 2024 fiscal year that has yet to be committed to specific projects, or if it could affect pending payments to organizations that have already performed work on foreign assistance programs.