Charitable organizations that have historically depended on U.S. foreign assistance are now seeking alternative sources of funding, both private and public, in response to the Trump administration’s suspension of nearly all foreign aid contracts. However, considering previous donation patterns, such a transition to alternative lifelines seems improbable. The United States, previously the world’s largest single contributor to foreign aid, leaves a considerable void that other governments and private foundations are ill-equipped to fill, as noted by program executives, aid researchers, and nonprofit workers.
International development specialists highlight that, in addition to the loss of funding, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by the administration strips the sector of crucial political leadership and expertise that will be tough to replace. Initially, the Trump administration had frozen foreign aid and has subsequently laid off most USAID employees, ceasing numerous contracts and grants. According to a State Department spokesperson, the administration’s efforts to trim inefficiencies across the federal government align with a broader agenda to use taxpayer resources to reinforce America’s safety, strength, and prosperity.
Experts often assert that international humanitarian aid has primarily operated under the auspices of U.S. generosity. The abrupt halt in U.S. support has consequently shuttered life-saving initiatives worldwide, instigating an existential crisis for the international development sector. But could private donors bridge this gap? The numbers suggest otherwise, as the U.S.’s contribution accounted for a substantial $64 billion of the $223 billion in global development assistance provided in 2023.
Private organizations and individuals would have to significantly increase their contributions to compensate for the cuts—private donations that crossed borders amounted to $70 billion in 2020. Even if private entities doubled their donations, coordinating such endeavors would be a daunting challenge, with no clear leader to manage this coordination.
Rob Nabors, from the Gates Foundation, underscores the formidable challenges nonprofits focusing on global health face. He stated that no single foundation or coalition could substitute the funding and expertise historically provided by the U.S. government in tackling global health issues, poverty, and hunger. Meanwhile, other countries that have historically contributed to aid are also scaling back. Wealthy nations had pledged to allocate 0.7% of their gross national product to development aid in 1970, but very few met this target as countries cite budget constraints and shifts in political leadership for reductions.
Susan Appe of the University at Albany explores how nonprofits adapt to the evolving international donor landscape. Local organizations might pursue funding from their governments, capitalize on their activities, or seek diaspora community support. However, crafting these adaptive strategies requires time—a luxury often unavailable when funding is suddenly withdrawn.
The U.S. aid cuts have reignited discussions on foreign aid reform, with critics of the system pointing out reliance on dominant donor countries and inflexible practices as significant issues. There is a push towards “localizing aid” by directing funds more directly to countries or local organizations rather than via large international nonprofits. Nilima Gulrajani of the think tank ODI Global has been steering dialogues on re-imagining the aid system.
Her discussions have probed the fundamental reasons why affluent nations should engage in foreign aid, concentrating on alleviating extreme poverty and addressing climate and global health challenges. In the wake of U.S. cuts, progress in these areas appears dauntingly ambitious, with other countries unlikely to fill the substantial void left.
Lastly, while there are criticisms of misuse within foreign aid sectors, few champions of aid have welcomed the ramifications of the Trump administration’s cuts. Organizations like Unlock Aid advocate for reforms, proposing enhanced cooperation with aid-receiving nations to set priorities and demand greater transparency from grantees. They emphasize the necessity for a collective and inspiring vision to drive foreign aid reforms, while simultaneously grappling with emergency fundraising efforts to sustain organizations affected by the USAID funding cut.
