Global South perspectives on US development assistance changes and future directions

1. On impact

A range of views on impacts were shared throughout the discussion. These included:

Many participants conveyed a dire overall assessment of the international consequences of recent U.S. policy developments at multiple levels:

• On a human level, large numbers of lives and livelihoods are at risk, presenting a danger to the well-being of individuals and communities.
• On an organizational level, many entities face an imminent threat to their financial viability.
• On a strategic level, multiple constituencies described a break in trust and confidence in the United States.

The following words were each used at least once to describe the current situation: stress, confusion, chaos, insensitivity, harshness, cruelty, panic, trauma.

One participant described the disruption to the U.S. foreign assistance structure and system as having broken trust and faith, not just with U.S. assistance but with the entire international development system.

Multiple participants described the context as having highlighted the colonial nature of the development architecture.

Participants also noted that the suspension of funding and USAID decisionmaking, including the inability to respond to inquiries, is endangering not just the work but also the viability of organizations that receive funding from the United States. Even for organizations that received only a small portion of their funding from USAID, that assistance often is integrated with other funding and so the suspension of U.S. assistance causes disruption throughout an organization.

The consequences of U.S. actions were described as having a negative ripple effect throughout the development community, even to organizations unaffiliated with USAID, including those working on immigration. It is affecting people who go unnoticed—people who are the workhorses of humanitarian and development work.

Other participants noted that the changes are depriving local organizations of the knowledge and skills of Northern partners, too.

Multiple participants emphasized that recent events are happening in the context, and will further the trend, of shrinking civic space, which is increasingly restricted by authoritarian governments as civil society attempts to perform its role of holding government accountable. This has negative implications for advancing democracy.

A participant commented that, in deliberations leading up to the Fourth International Financing for Development Conference (FfD4) set to take place mid-2025 in Spain, authoritarian governments are feeling emboldened to push for changes to past FfD agreements, especially on issues relating to human rights.

The withdrawal of U.S. assistance is taking people’s attention off major crises around the world, such as Haiti, Ethiopia, and the DRC—roughly half of U.S. assistance goes to countries with internal conflict—with devastating consequences. Who is going to respond to the Ebola outbreak in Uganda in the absence of the U.S.?

One participant distilled the issues to hinge on three concurrent challenges:

• Human well-being. The cost to human life and well-being is palpable, with children not going to schools that have been closed and raising issues such as which family members shut off from antiretroviral medication will die in the next few months.
• The disruption to U.S. foreign assistance is causing confusion due to the lack of available information, with organizations not able to know what they need to do to be in compliance. Some Southern organizations had recently moved from serving as subsidiary contractors to USAID implementers to serving as primary implementers. To do so, they have had to build accounting and reporting systems consistent with USAID rules and regulations. But they now lack funding and information to ensure they stay in compliance, and risk future shutdown due to risks of non-compliance.
• Organizational survival. Many local organizations have shifted their focus from building solidarity to seeking survival, captured in the sentiment, “It’s now just about keeping the lights on.” This in turn prompts local actors to operate in silos rather than as a development community and undercuts previous progress toward localization.

2. Looking forward

In discussing potential constructive paths forward, multiple participants agreed on the need to not look to the past with rose-tinted glasses and instead take the opportunity to determine the best course ahead. A participant posited that USAID, if it returns, will not be the same, and that U.S. development assistance ought to be guided by its development and humanitarian merits rather than strategic military and economic priorities.

One participant noted that the disruption to U.S. assistance breaks what had been a growing solidarity between the South and North and makes it essential to restore that solidarity as “we are all in this together, and we need to look at how we fix it together.” Another participant noted that recent events have highlighted the tension between assistance based on pragmatism versus values, with the latter needing to be the basis for rebuilding the development system.

A participant indicated that it is time for the development sector to ask itself fundamental questions—including how the work is structured and how people talk about the work of decolonization, localization, and shifting power. Another participant emphasized the role of civil society to influence government policies and break the silos that constrain development.

Participants raised the need for new alliances to propose a new aid architecture, since incrementalist approaches have led to the current situation. A focus on systems, not individuals, is required.

The discussion raised a need for common messaging about interconnectedness, and the importance of recognizing that the U.S. lives in a reciprocal, interconnected world. One participant commented that, if one country faces a climate crisis, conflict, stark economic inequality, or abuse of justice and rights, it is eventually going to impact the United States as a country having interests in every part of the world. Another participant emphasized, for example, that money for Coca-Cola and Pepsi flows to the U.S. from all over the world.

One participant suggested that concepts of human rights and human dignity have been corrupted. Democracy needs to be reimagined around the lives and well-being of people.

A participant asserted that USAID was the donor most responsive to the local context; it understood the need for change. Moving forward, there is a need to advance locally led development priorities with all funders. A new development architecture can improve efficiency by removing duplication while localizing.

A thread of discussion emphasized the need for a development system built around trust, cooperation, accountability to local stakeholders, resilience, and self-reliance with less dependency on foreign assistance.

One participant described how civil society organizations have been part of an effort to bring data and evidence to development. But metrics can be co-opted, so it is important to ensure they are not misused to undercut development assistance and cut off some countries, notably fragile states.

At the roundtable, participants raised structural critiques of the current development system. One argued that the current framework is heavily concentrated in the North, where the resources, expertise, and skills are located. Another stressed the need to move more power to in-country offices and to local organizations.

A participant suggested that Northern-based INGOs need to rethink their measures of success, with the aim of making themselves obsolete. Their goal should be helping people and communities to achieve justice, equity, and sustainable change, anchored in accountable and transparent governments.