By Thalia Beaty
Charitable organizations that were counting on American foreign assistance are turning to various private and public donors now that the Trump administration has suspended almost all foreign aid contracts.
The past donation models suggest that such a life buoy is unlikely. The United States was the largest fundaler in the world of foreign aid, and neither other governments nor private foundations are able to fill the void, according to program leaders, researchers and non-profit workers.
International development experts indicate that, with the loss of financing, the dismantling of the administration of the American agency for international development deprives the field of political leadership and expertise which will be difficult to replace.
The Trump administration initially frozen foreign aid, but has since dismissed most USAID employees while putting more assistance and grant contracts at the end. Trump’s adviser and billionaire, Elon Musk, who oversees administration work to reduce public spending and the decline in federal workforce, qualified USAID as criminal organization.
“The American people have delivered a mandate to President Trump to eliminate ineffectiveness through the federal government,” said a spokesperson for the State Department, adding that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio worked “to ensure that taxpayers’ resources are used to make America more sure, stronger and more prosperous.”
Experts agree that the international humanitarian assistance system has mainly operated on the back of American benevolence. What seems to be the sudden end of this time closed rescue programs worldwide and has sparked an existential crisis for the international development sector.
Could private donors fill the void?
No, the figures do not add up.
The United States has represented $ 64 billion, or $ 28% of $ 223 billion in official development assistance that governments provided in 2023, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Also known as helping abroad, these funds could go directly to other countries, humanitarian aid, to finance the United Nations work or to help refugees.
Private organizations and individuals would essentially need to double their gifts to compensate for the USAID cuts: private donations that crossed borders totaled $ 70 billion in 2020, the last year of data available in the world philanthropy tracker of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy of Indiana University.
Even if all the private donors have given twice as much, the coordination of their activities would be a major task, and we do not know which organization would take this.
Rob Nabors, director of the Gates Foundation in North America, described the extent of the challenges facing non -profit groups that focus on global health.
“There is no basis – or a group of foundations – which can provide funding, the ability of the workforce, expertise or leadership that the United States has historically provided to fight and control deadly diseases and tackle hunger and poverty in the world,” Nabors said in a statement.
What about other countries?
The richest countries in the world agreed in the United Nations in 1970 to spend 0.7% of their gross national product in development aid. Few countries have already reached the target, and many are now withdrawing.
In recent years, other major donor countries have announced reductions in their foreign assistance spending, including Sweden, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Budget constraints were cited for some of the discounts, and others came after the election of conservative governments, some of which consider aid as a waste or not in accordance with their national interests.
Susan Appel, an associate professor of public and political administration at the University of Albany, looked for how non -profit organizations deal with the changing whims of international donor countries.
She said local organizations could try to gain funding from their own governments, earn income from their activities, increase philanthropic contributions in their own country or obtain support from diaspora communities.
“These adaptive strategies or adaptation mechanisms take time to cultivate,” said Appe, which is not possible when the funds are suddenly cut.
What are the criticisms of foreign aid?
The American cuts have attracted new attention to efforts to reform the functioning of foreign aid.
Critics in the field have experienced dependence on the main donor countries, mainly the United States and Europe, as a problem among many. They argued that foreign aid was too rigid, too lowered, had too many intermediaries and never enough money.
For example, there was a major push in international development circles to “locate aid”. This meant giving more money directly to local countries or organizations instead of ensuring that governments grant major subsidies to international non-profit organizations that subcontracted with smaller organizations.
Nilima Gulrajani, principal researcher at the Think Tank, based in London, Odi Global, led a project in the past year to reinvent the foreign aid system.
“Everyone knew that rethinking was necessary. It was clear before all these cuts, ”said Gulrajani. “But it now takes an emergency that he did not, and unfortunately, the collateral damage in the process will be the most vulnerable people.”
Thanks to a series of dialogues called “donors in a post-Aid world”, his project asked: why should the richest countries give foreign help at all?
In October, a small group of countries of donors, researchers and participating activists suggested meeting the most basic arguments for foreign aid: focusing on extreme poverty, on shared interests such as climate change attenuation and global health management, then reform of development aid.
Given the cuts in Washington, progress in these regions now seem ambitious, said Gulrajani.
“It is very unlikely that one of these donors will pick up or fill the holes that have been left,” she said about other rich countries. “Not only is it very difficult to make the size of the hole, but I also think that there is a feeling that the withdrawal of the United States has just made incalculable damage to the sector overall.”
Will the loss of USAID provide a new start?
Few criticism of the foreign aid sector welcomed the consequences of the Trump administration cuts.
For example, non -profit unlocking help argued that too many American foreign help expenses go through large entrepreneurs in Washington and that USAID did not do enough to keep them responsible for the results.
Unlock Aid has offered more cooperation with beneficiary countries to allow them to help set the priorities and more strict transparency requirements for beneficiaries.
“I think those who care about foreign help investments must constitute an inspiring vision for what a new future can look like what the Americans can find themselves,” said Walter Kerr, the co-executive director of Unlock Aid.
In February, Unlock Aid was one of the many organizations that have launched emergency fundraising for the benefit of organizations that have lost funding from the USAID. He has already collected $ 600,000 and recommended initial subsidies.
“It is very difficult to have a conversation on the reform while the rescue programs on which people depend are interrupted,” said Kerr.
The coverage associated with the philanthropy press and non -profit organizations receives support by the collaboration of the AP with the American conversation, with the financing of Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all the cover of AP philanthropy, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers
