At WECO, news of the recent U.S. foreign aid freezes has been deeply troubling, and our team wanted to share a few thoughts to help explain how these decisions have the potential to erase years of progress in global development. We are angry, frustrated, and concerned about the realities facing communities of people—many of whom we know—now experiencing lack of staff and funding to do their critical work. The repercussions of this are still unknown; but we are aware of some early implications of what this means IRL.
Organizations typically receiving direct USAID funding are struggling to stay alive without it, resulting in widespread program disruptions and cessation of services. These include school programs for underserved youth, food security initiatives for children living in rural villages, critical healthcare services for mothers living in extremely remote areas, and vaccine / medical programs that protect people experiencing poverty from severe health challenges. Several USAID-led health programs (were) designed to protect vulnerable communities (including those in the U.S.) from health crises and viral outbreaks. It is no exaggeration to say, defunding those programs is an extremely dangerous, unnecessary risk to global security and prosperity.
PLF students on break for recess. The PLF has (so far) been unaffected, but many Cambodian school and food programs have already been impacted. Photo courtesy of our partners at PLF.
Unfortunately, there will also be cascading, indirect repercussions for other aid organizations experiencing funding difficulties. Imagine: when the global development network loses such a broad and historically stable source of funding, it strains an already strained system of resource distribution. Some programs will be canceled in anticipation of losing their funding or out of fear of being targeted and penalized moving forward. These organizations will ultimately have to seek funding elsewhere, making it much more competitive than ever before to receive essential support for life-saving programing.
Many business-minded people may remark that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing; that, for lack of a better way of saying it, this will ‘weed out’ the weaker organizations or programs so only the strongest ones survive. That may be partially true. This is a very bleak view of development, one that necessitates the existence of Winners and Losers in an industry that isn’t and shouldn’t be guided primarily by principles of capitalism. This viewpoint also acquiesces to the sacrifice of smaller, grassroots organizations, often ones with community or local leadership, as they are the ones with less infrastructure or means to satisfy lengthy requirements from larger donor institutions. And more broadly, to us it goes against the core humanity of what global development seeks to do, which is uplift underserved populations through support systems that create a healthier, more equitable world.
To suggest that shuttering the ‘weaker’ organizations would be ultimately a good thing is to be compliant to the abrupt removal of infrastructure and critical resources in the world’s most vulnerable communities. They are pawns of a political landscape where the poorest people are struggling the most, and are always the first to be offered up for sacrifice. For what reason does this make sense? We live in a world of finite resources, but there are enough to satisfy the needs of the global population. However, these resources have and continue to be acquired and distributed in inequitable ways by the world’s superpowers. The conditions we combat through global development solutions do not exist in a vacuum. This is simply a matter of (literally) sharing the wealth.
As with most crises, women will bear the brunt of this burden. Funding cuts will exacerbate violence against and oppression of women and will threaten peace and social cohesion across the world. We are strongly concerned for women in crisis situations, including those in conflict zones, survivors of gender-based violence, and displaced populations that rely on foreign aid-supported programs.
Maasai women preparing crafts to sell. Women’s economic empowerment through social enterprise is one of the fastest ways to make a positive impact in communities.
What comes next?
While the situation appears deeply discouraging, there is no doubt in our minds that so many local leaders have no choice but to continue their important work. Our partners are counted among them. As always, we will consult our networks to understand the best place for us in this ongoing battle to spread resources to programing for women’s and girls’ empowerment. We will show solidarity and persistence through our work. Now more than ever, uplifting women and girls will absolutely uplift entire communities. Because we know: when women succeed, their families, communities, and countries are better off as well.
Moving forward, we will establish a fund for emergency assistance similar to during the COVID-19 pandemic, where we can deliver support to communities in need as urgencies arise. Together, we will navigate the twists and turns to come. Together, we can weather the storm. And together, we can stand united against nationalism, ethnocentrism, and hate. That is what we believe it truly means to be an American—and a global citizen. We hope you’ll join us in building resilience in the face of this destructiveness through peaceful, collective action.
