n response to the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), many have expressed concerns that global development is over. Those fears are unfounded. Rather than the end of development, we are witnessing a reshuffling of the global aid ecosystem.
The financial landscape is changing as donor governments focus their budgets on domestic priorities, resulting in a shift away from the reliance on traditional donors to fund global development projects.
Unfortunately, recent budget reductions are not correlated with an improvement in global conditions and reductions are likely to worsen many global challenges. These changes have direct implications on what foreign assistance looks like moving forward.
It’s time to reimagine how development works. As mission–driven professionals, development practitioners are resolute in working to solve global challenges. Too often, too much of this work remains tethered to U.S. government funding. At the same time, many development practitioners felt stifled by U.S. federal regulations, congressional timelines that seldom aligned with local needs, wavering political motivations, and restrictive funding earmarks.
Some argue donor governments should take responsibility for funding global aid projects, yet development efforts have too often been shaped by top–down donor priorities rather than the socio–economic realities and historical country–specific contexts. Likewise, donor funds carry donor priorities, perpetuating the donor–recipient power asymmetry that the sector has fought to reshape.
A Reimagined Development Model
The gap left by donor–funded global aid will have demonstrable impacts, but it doesn’t mean countries are incapable of supporting their own domestic programs. This, of course, varies greatly by country and sector and is particularly influenced by tax revenue, public expenditures, financial systems, and social protection systems, among other factors. As Samuel A. Worthington notes, “Most interventions in human wellbeing in middle and low income countries come from local sources, as nations primarily fund their own social and health programs…Middle and low income countries collectively spend approximately 4.7 trillion annually on social protection programs and health care.”
The future lies in working directly with foreign governments, non–profits, and private sector institutions in countries where experience and networks already exist. Project scopes and budgets may be smaller, but a program that demonstrates its efficacy to the government or other local funder is likely to merit domestic funding where available. Rethinking traditional funding structures is critical. Considering community support beyond government and private sector funding by leveraging grassroots approaches such as mutual aid, solidarity funds, cooperatives, and community donations may provide viable funding or cost–share alternatives.
This isn’t a silver bullet and there are challenges associated with this approach. No matter what, there will be political motivations and divided opinions on the nature of development work. Not every government will welcome external expertise, but many would eagerly welcome trusted global development professionals to collaborate alongside local partners who understand the challenges and opportunities on the ground. Fortunately, navigating politically complex environments was always a part of the job.
Toward True Localization
For decades, the sector has championed some form of 'localization' strategy. Global development professionals are now uniquely positioned to localize and transition into managing independent projects directly with local governments or organizations. This direct engagement provides a path forward defined by agility, flexibility, and direct accountability to in–country stakeholders.
Projects can be developed collaboratively alongside local governments, community groups, and scholars who best understand their contexts. For too long, the development community has neglected Global South leadership and scholarship. This approach rebalances the relationship and ensures that goals align with local priorities, not just donor mandates.
Communities are inherently self–motivated systems. When challenges arise, members are driven to act collectively to improve their shared wellbeing. Locally driven projects allow communities to establish their own timelines and goals. When governments and communities define the terms of success, they are more accountable to outcomes and more invested in sustaining progress. Thus, long–term development, rather than short–sighted political timelines, becomes the driving force.
The next chapter of development should not be about replicating the old system in a new form. It should remain focused on localization by building direct partnerships, redistributing authority, and amplifying the expertise that already exists in the countries where we work. We must harness this momentum as we pave forward the future of development.
a global affairs media network
Global development is not over
Photo by Nicole Avagliano on Unsplash
October 15, 2025
Fears that the absence of USAID signals the end of global development aid are unfounded. What we are witnessing is a reshuffling of those systems, which gives us an opportunity to reimagine how development works and do it better, writes Chandler J. Woods.
I
n response to the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), many have expressed concerns that global development is over. Those fears are unfounded. Rather than the end of development, we are witnessing a reshuffling of the global aid ecosystem.
The financial landscape is changing as donor governments focus their budgets on domestic priorities, resulting in a shift away from the reliance on traditional donors to fund global development projects.
Unfortunately, recent budget reductions are not correlated with an improvement in global conditions and reductions are likely to worsen many global challenges. These changes have direct implications on what foreign assistance looks like moving forward.
It’s time to reimagine how development works. As mission–driven professionals, development practitioners are resolute in working to solve global challenges. Too often, too much of this work remains tethered to U.S. government funding. At the same time, many development practitioners felt stifled by U.S. federal regulations, congressional timelines that seldom aligned with local needs, wavering political motivations, and restrictive funding earmarks.
Some argue donor governments should take responsibility for funding global aid projects, yet development efforts have too often been shaped by top–down donor priorities rather than the socio–economic realities and historical country–specific contexts. Likewise, donor funds carry donor priorities, perpetuating the donor–recipient power asymmetry that the sector has fought to reshape.
A Reimagined Development Model
The gap left by donor–funded global aid will have demonstrable impacts, but it doesn’t mean countries are incapable of supporting their own domestic programs. This, of course, varies greatly by country and sector and is particularly influenced by tax revenue, public expenditures, financial systems, and social protection systems, among other factors. As Samuel A. Worthington notes, “Most interventions in human wellbeing in middle and low income countries come from local sources, as nations primarily fund their own social and health programs…Middle and low income countries collectively spend approximately 4.7 trillion annually on social protection programs and health care.”
The future lies in working directly with foreign governments, non–profits, and private sector institutions in countries where experience and networks already exist. Project scopes and budgets may be smaller, but a program that demonstrates its efficacy to the government or other local funder is likely to merit domestic funding where available. Rethinking traditional funding structures is critical. Considering community support beyond government and private sector funding by leveraging grassroots approaches such as mutual aid, solidarity funds, cooperatives, and community donations may provide viable funding or cost–share alternatives.
This isn’t a silver bullet and there are challenges associated with this approach. No matter what, there will be political motivations and divided opinions on the nature of development work. Not every government will welcome external expertise, but many would eagerly welcome trusted global development professionals to collaborate alongside local partners who understand the challenges and opportunities on the ground. Fortunately, navigating politically complex environments was always a part of the job.
Toward True Localization
For decades, the sector has championed some form of 'localization' strategy. Global development professionals are now uniquely positioned to localize and transition into managing independent projects directly with local governments or organizations. This direct engagement provides a path forward defined by agility, flexibility, and direct accountability to in–country stakeholders.
Projects can be developed collaboratively alongside local governments, community groups, and scholars who best understand their contexts. For too long, the development community has neglected Global South leadership and scholarship. This approach rebalances the relationship and ensures that goals align with local priorities, not just donor mandates.
Communities are inherently self–motivated systems. When challenges arise, members are driven to act collectively to improve their shared wellbeing. Locally driven projects allow communities to establish their own timelines and goals. When governments and communities define the terms of success, they are more accountable to outcomes and more invested in sustaining progress. Thus, long–term development, rather than short–sighted political timelines, becomes the driving force.
The next chapter of development should not be about replicating the old system in a new form. It should remain focused on localization by building direct partnerships, redistributing authority, and amplifying the expertise that already exists in the countries where we work. We must harness this momentum as we pave forward the future of development.
