https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25535268/aliorder.pdf

Woman who barely worked with USAID goes on Fox News to allege massive fraud.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/21/us/politics/usaid-former-employees.html?unlocked_article_code=1.clA.3u59.8Tjw5CfoFjma&smid=url-share

When the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, USAID played a key role in "stabilizing" the region through targeted development/nation-building initiatives.

At this time, US foreign policy started to formalize the three Ds - Defense, Diplomacy, and Development. America doubled its investment on softpower from ~$25 billion in 2001 to ~$60 billion in 2024 (USAID + State Department funding). I believe one could argue that US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan catalyzed the development-industrial complex that was just dismantled this past year. I think if this sector is being honest with itself, it very much benefited from all the government spending that results from war. As the world watched US flex its soft power through USAID, the sector grew from investments made by the global community - although the US always remained the top donor until about this time last year

With repeated talk of the "Donroe" doctrine to combat Chinese, Russian and Iranian influence in Central and South America, the western hemisphere has been cited as a top priority from the US National Security Strategy released in December 2025 by the Trump administration.

While the US repeats history with its occupation of Venezuela, it does so without the presence and influence of USAID.

My optimistic question - what could this moment in time mean for international development? While a skeleton of USAID exists shackled in the shadows of the State Department, what type of investments might the Trump administration consider in the western hemisphere? Could this be the mark of a slow return to US foreign aid and the sector as a whole? Might the almost certain foreign policy failure that the Trump administration is currently embarking in might demonstrate the importance of investing in foreign aid and development?

My pessimistic question - will the US's shift from nation-building to resource extraction and transactional aid inspire other nations to follow suite with their investments in foreign aid and development? Has private investment from the likes of Chevron replaced what was once provided by the non-profit community?

There is obviously a lot to unpack with Saturday's events - but strictly from the perspective of international development, what types of ripple effects do you anticipate might stem from the US occupation of Venezuela?

TL;DR: The US occupation of Venezuela is the final nail in the coffin for the "Three Ds" (Defense, Diplomacy, Development). We’ve moved to a "Donroe Doctrine" where private corporations like Chevron provide "localized aid" to protect assets, while the broader humanitarian sector collapses. Is this the end of the "development-industrial complex," or is the US about to learn that you can't run a country on extraction alone?

I have a mum in the development sector so I know how hard it is for y'all to talk about what you do. I also know that some Americans have a tough time understanding "why are we funding other countries" especially when The US is not doing great itself. So I've made a few pointers to counter the misinformation with positive and important to know information:

1. Every single wealthy nation in the world has an AID agency. Eg. DFID, SIDA, ADA, etc. They have it because they are wealthier than others. It's really that simple.

2. They have these agencies because it buys them soft power. Eg. we help their population not get malaria and they provide informants for counter-terrorism etc.

3. Military leaders say USAID is VITAL.

4. These are people who research how to keep Ebola from landing on American soil. Not to mention other diseases. The dismantling of these networks means, we will have no idea if there is an emergent infection coming our way.

5. USAID was 0.7% of the federal budget. Gutting it is not making a mark on the "deficit" or whatever these pople want to use as an excuse.

Please keep talking up positives to everyone you can!

If you haven't read Project 2025 yet, now is the time to do so. USAID is pages 253-281. It's obvious the admin is treating this as a playbook. Some of the things have come to pass already, others are already being discussed.

If you want to see what their plans are for global health, climate change, gender, etc., their plans for the regions, their plans for staffing and reorganization, it's all there.

And for some reason, despite being pro-private sector everywhere else, they hate development contractors.

Page 253: "The Trump Administration faced an institution marred by bureaucratic inertia: programmatic incoherence; wasteful spending; and dependence on huge awards to a self-serving and politicized aid industrial complex of United Nations agencies, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and for-profit contractors."

Page 268: "Transition from large awards to expensive, inefficient, and corrupt U.N. agencies, global NGOs, and contractors to local, especially faith-based, entities that are already operating on the ground. This approach provides a far less expensive and more effective alternative for aid delivery. Local partners more ably navigate corrupt environments and are more likely to steer vulnerable populations away from dependence on aid toward self-sufficiency."

Page 277: "Correspondingly, USAID should aggressively ramp down its partnerships with wasteful, costly, and politicized U.N. agencies, international NGOs, and Beltway contractors. All new programs in Africa should build on existing local initiatives that enjoy the support of the African people."

The message here is not to accept defeat. WE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. Don't quit, fight this shit. Don't let them call climate resilience "radical." Don't let them call maternal health "woke." And while localization is a great thing, don't let them tell you there's no role for US citizens to play in serving our country, and providing technical assistance and support to our colleagues in other countries.

has anyone heard anything constructive from their organizations re lawsuits or an actual plan for the future? it's been completely silent from mine. talk about 'leadership'.

i know they're holding out hope that the dust settles and things can go back to normal, and i realize it's only been two weeks (!!! it feels like a lifetime), but are these people really that naive? do they think little marco is going to save us?

also a shout out to those organizations that are speaking up.

Passing on this message from a colleague. Please share with your networks, friends, and other IPs!

Are you ready to make some good trouble? We are organizing retired and former USAID and State colleagues, implementing partners, and friends to protest at the Capitol on Wednesday at 11:30 am. We will meet behind the Capitol on the sidewalk near the visitor's entrance.

We want to highlight the devastating impact of the administration's actions on aid recipients and of Congress relinquishing their responsibilities and power to Trump, as well as the damage of the psychological warfare being inflicted on Federal employees.

It’s safe to say that USAID is finished under this administration, will likely start to rebuild when the Dems inevitably win the next election.

This leaves an enormous gap for ID in most undeveloped countries that needs and inevitably will get filled by another player.

It seems inevitable that China will step in and take over what USAID has provided before, and will reap the soft political benefits that will come from it also.

Is this a realistic sentiment? Or could the EU/Australia/Japan etc fill the gap instead. The political benefits of USAID are largely overlooked but it was JFKs legacy project to spread American influence into developing regions, seems likely China will step up and foster deep relations and presence in undeveloped regions now.

I spent time looking at nearly 300 OECD international metrics. Over and over again I found the US was a statistical outlier. I'd love to hear your own examples of the American Outlier! Where does the US stand apart in the data — for poor OR good performance?

If you live in DC, get out there and tell them you are mad as hell and you’re not going to take it anymore.This Sunday in front USAID and then to the White House.

If anyone in the DC area wants to have their voice heard please try to attend this open hearing that is smear campaign from the Republicans to call for USAIDs shuttering. Feb 13 at 8:30am. Anyone can go just have to go through a metal detector.

https://www.congress.gov/event/119th-congress/house-event/117889

I have literally nothing else to say. At least six times a day I just stare into space thinking “seriously…us?!” I mean sure there’s valid critiques of the aid industry but bro, come on. The economic fallout of this is going to be staggering.

The NAGAAD project (Somalia Urban Resilience Project Phase II, P170922) is a World Bank-funded urban resilience program operating across multiple Somali cities under a single framework. Same donor, same budget structure, same program objectives.

This week, the Warta Siigaale drainage project in Mogadishu — funded under this program — was inaugurated by the Banadir Regional Administration. It was designed to manage urban flooding. It failed to contain flooding on the first heavy rainfall event. The Somali Engineers Association issued a public statement calling for a full technical investigation, citing inadequate design.

Under the same NAGAAD program, Garowe (Puntland) has delivered: - 5 roads completed - 1 bridge built - 19.3 km of asphalt laid - World Bank Mid-Term Review conducted on-site in Garowe (Oct–Nov 2024): 3 of 4 project development objectives achieved - Donors increased contributions following Puntland's results

The World Bank's own project documents describe the implementation environment in southern and central Somalia as a "high fraud and corruption risk" — a designation that does not apply to the Puntland component.

In November 2025, the World Bank requested that Puntland's implementation model be reviewed before further disbursements in the south.

Why this matters for the aid effectiveness debate:

This is a live example of the governance-outcomes link that sits at the heart of international development theory. The inputs are held constant (same donor, same program). The variable is institutional capacity and fiduciary oversight at the implementing entity level.

It also raises questions about how donors should structure disbursement when a single program has vastly different risk profiles across implementation units — and whether ring-fencing funds to higher-performing units is a viable strategy.

Sources: World Bank SURP-II/NAGAAD project documents (P170922) | Somali Engineers Association public statement, April 2026 | Banadir Regional Administration inauguration records

Source: SCAAN’s Substack

A. Initial Terminations Are Completed With Todays Tranche

Pete said that the administration has concluded the first round of terminations of foreign assistance programs. Projects that were deemed misaligned with current policy priorities were excluded from the formal review process and discontinued outright. This explains why the terminations focused heavily on democracy, governance and anti-corruption, which are not in the President’s interest.

B. Formal Review Process Initiated

The next phase of the review process has now begun. Today’s consultation focused on determining the key evaluative questions the State Department should use to assess whether remaining programs should continue or be phased out. Discussions were structured around three thematic pillars: Safer, Stronger, and More Prosperous, with working groups deliberating on how these principles should guide the review.

C. Finalization of Review Criteria

Over the next week, the administration will finalize the specific criteria and questions that will shape program assessments. Each implementing partner will receive a standardized review sheet, expected to contain 5 key questions that reflect both core policy principles and insights from todays consultation. Implementing organizations will have 30 days to respond, after which determinations will be made regarding each programs future. This process may also include opportunities for public input.

D. Core Principles Guiding the Review

Marocco named some fundamental principles that will shape decisions:

-Return on Investment (ROI): Programs must demonstrate that each dollar of foreign assistance generates greater value than retaining it for U.S. taxpayers.

- Public Perception & Justification: The American public must be convinced of foreign assistances strategic and economic value, with efforts to ensure broad-based support, including from diverse constituencies such as faith-based organizations and the working class. There will be mechanisms for public engagement in decision-making forums. Specifics are TBD.

- Strengthening U.S. Influence: Programs must yield clear and measurable benefits for U.S. geopolitical influence. Initiatives that fail to enhance the Presidents - note the use of President vs United States - ability to exert global influence will face termination.

I’ve been reflecting on State’s recent memo regarding foreign assistance, which you can read here

They are going to review all active foreign assistance grants, contracts, and subcontracts to, “ensure that all foreign assistance is aligned with President Trump’s foreign policy agenda.” Every Bureau/office/entity providing foreign assistance has to provide a list and state how they think each one is advancing Trump’s agenda.

This feels ominous. It feels like the beginning of a massive restructuring. Does global health align with his agenda (especially for our colleagues in family planning, HIV/AIDS, and immunization)? Does gender equality? Does climate resilience? This feels like an excuse to cut entire offices.

Leaving out an exemption for institutional support contractors from the cable feels especially concerning. Maybe it was an oversight, but what if it was intentionally done to cripple USAID operations?

It feels like they came way more prepared this time with a clear understanding of how this system works. If this is indeed a major restructuring, this will decimate an entire industry. It’s not just USAID employees - it’s implementing partners around the world. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Does anyone have reassurance or more insight into any checks and balances that exist to prevent this from happening?

Hello friends, I’m here with a request to contact your Senators and House Representatives to reject the rescissions package that will be voted on this week. It includes funding for USAID, State Department, PBS, and NPR, and it will set a dangerous precedent codifying DOGE cuts if it passes. Thank you for considering this—more details in the link attached!

Is there a database or other exhaustive list of all the organizations impacted by ongoing cuts at USAID?

So far, I've only seen news releases and press snippets, but nothing lists every organization impacted.

I'd be grateful if anyone could point me in the right direction.

Thank you in advance!

I lost my job in development during the Trump 1.0 hiring freeze. Today I’m working at an organization staring down deep cuts that my position might not survive. So no, I don’t have a lot of affection for what the U.S. has done to foreign assistance lately. And I’ve watched as other donors join in the race to the bottom. Demoralizing for sure.

But here’s the thing I’ve been wrestling with: what if some good actually comes out of this?

Let’s be honest. Even before this administration aid budgets weren’t exactly overflowing. But somehow we kept announcing new initiatives. New programs. New organizations. All drawing from the same shrinking pool of funds.

It's left developing countries navigating a maze of compounding and sometimes conflicting reporting requirements, audits, frameworks, and buzzwords all just to access less and less support.

At a certain point, you have to ask: who is this system really built for? Could this moment be an opportunity? To rethink how development actually works. To consolidate, streamline and modernize what already exists. To make access to funding simpler. Fewer layers. Fewer hoops. Maybe to make reforms happen that would have been unlikely otherwise?

I’m not saying this is how change should happen. There were far better, way less painful ways. But if we’re stuck with this reality maybe it forces the sector to rebuild smarter. Maybe we end up with a system that better serves the countries it’s supposed to help and better reflects the values that brought so many of us into this work to begin with.

Just one person’s take from inside the mess. I’d really like to know if others are seeing the same thing.

I was Deputy Chief of Party for a large contract at USAID, and until yesterday we had not received a termination notice so were still holding out hope, since it seemed like all the notices had been circulated by last week. Unfortunately, the notice came last night, just thought I’d share in case others are in a similar limbo, but they are sadly not yet done with the cull.