he start of 2025 brought unprecedented challenges to the global development landscape following the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The demise of USAID sent shockwaves through international and local humanitarian organizations—particularly those operating in conflict–affected regions—resulting in the disruption of ongoing projects and forcing many non–governmental organizations (NGOs) to scale down or shut down entirely.
The consequences are especially dire for organizations heavily reliant on USAID. Many projects have had their funding abruptly frozen, leaving communities in limbo. JRS Asia Pacific, one of the humanitarian organizations serving refugees in many countries in Asia, including the Philippines, has been among the hardest hit due to the closure of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in the U.S. With reduced staff and uncertain futures, many are now forced to pivot to short–term, patchwork responses.
What does this mean for peacebuilding organizations
Since January, peacebuilders around the world have been looking for ways to sustain their work amid the disruption. One organization supporting local peacebuilders, Peace Starts Here, has through co–creation sessions where peacebuilders are finding creative ways to sustain their work—proof that grassroots resilience cannot be frozen along with international grants.
Across the globe, the ripple effects are being felt:
- In the United States, USAID's closure and the U.S. Institute of Peace downsizing at its D.C. headquarters fueled growing uncertainty in the peacebuilding sector.
- In Latin America—notably Venezuela—fear and instability are deepening amid increased deportations and crackdowns on activists.
- In Africa, political tensions and armed conflict in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo are worsening as critical international support disappears.
- In the Middle East, fragile peace efforts are further undermined by reduced funding, jeopardizing political and humanitarian gains.
- In Asia, following a recent earthquake in Myanmar, urgent humanitarian needs persist. Whereas the U.S. once led rapid response efforts, now others are stepping in—though often without the resources or expertise that USAID once provided.
What’s next for the global peacebuilding sector
Among the sectors affected, peacebuilding efforts worldwide have taken a severe hit. For decades, the U.S. served as a major funder of global peace initiatives—supporting mediation, peace negotiations, and capacity building in conflict–affected regions. But this moment presents more than just a crisis—it presents an invitation to reflect and radically rethink how peacebuilding is carried out. It is time to shift the power from the centralized funders to those on the frontlines—from externally driven priorities to community–rooted action.
Shifting the power from dependency to agency
Breaking the cycle of dependency. Many small, community–based organizations have long depended on external funding—often from white–led institutions with rigid frameworks and top–down approaches. These external actors too often impose solutions that fail to resonate with local realities. In some cases, their presence exacerbates harm by promoting dependency, reinforcing power imbalances, and inadvertently enabling corruption or exploitation. In truth, short–term project cycles prevent long–term impact. Communities find themselves cycling through redundant interventions dictated by changing donor priorities instead of responding to their actual needs.
Strengthening community–led peacebuilding. One of the lessons from this crisis is that peacebuilding does not need to be expensive to be effective. Across the globe, communities have always engaged in informal, volunteer–led peacebuilding efforts. In the Philippines, the spirit of Bayanihan—mutual aid and collective care—remains strong. From organizing conflict mediation to supporting the bereaved, communities continue to build peace with or without formal support. In rural communities, peace circles can happen under trees, and dialogue can be nurtured with home–cooked meals. Healing took place through collective rituals, storytelling, and songs long before foreign aid ever arrived. These traditional practices must be valued and strengthened, not replaced.
The unseen harm of external grants. While international funding has enabled vital work, it has also created unhealthy competition and dependency. Large grants often go to organizations unequipped to manage them effectively, resulting in financial mismanagement and, at times, further harm. Moreover, grassroots organizations are too often forced to tailor their work to donor expectations rather than community needs. This compromises authenticity and effectiveness. When priorities are externally defined, peacebuilders lose their autonomy.
Reclaiming local agency. This moment calls for courage and creativity. Some local peacebuilding organizations are now relying on savings, volunteerism, and alternative funding sources. But more than that, we are beginning to reclaim our power—as practitioners grounded in lived experience, cultural wisdom, and deep commitment. The more we rely on external aid, the more vulnerable we become. The less we are seen, the more we must assert our narratives, our strategies, and our visions for peace. We do not need to wait for donors to take action. We already have the tools. We already know. We already have each other.
Now more than ever, we need those working on the frontlines to continue their efforts even without external funding. We must strengthen our capacities and deepen our collective resilience. And we must demonstrate to the communities we serve that our commitment is not project–based, not tethered to financial rewards or global recognition, but grounded in genuine intent to rebuild and transform—one community at a time.
a global affairs media network
Shifting from dependency to agency in peacebuilding, post–USAID
Basket market in Kano, Nigeria. Peacebuilding efforts in conflict–afflicted regions, such as northern Nigeria, are hard–hit by USAID’s closure, but it also presents a chance for the sector to shift away from dependency toward regional agency. Photo by Nnaemeka Ugochukwu on Unsplash
May 5, 2025
For many peacebuilders around the world, USAID’s closure was a major blow and a sense of uncertainty prevails. But the global peacebuilding sector also now has a chance to break cycles of dependency—and reclaim local agency—that must be seized, writes Jamila-Aisha P. Sanguila.
T
he start of 2025 brought unprecedented challenges to the global development landscape following the closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The demise of USAID sent shockwaves through international and local humanitarian organizations—particularly those operating in conflict–affected regions—resulting in the disruption of ongoing projects and forcing many non–governmental organizations (NGOs) to scale down or shut down entirely.
The consequences are especially dire for organizations heavily reliant on USAID. Many projects have had their funding abruptly frozen, leaving communities in limbo. JRS Asia Pacific, one of the humanitarian organizations serving refugees in many countries in Asia, including the Philippines, has been among the hardest hit due to the closure of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration in the U.S. With reduced staff and uncertain futures, many are now forced to pivot to short–term, patchwork responses.
What does this mean for peacebuilding organizations
Since January, peacebuilders around the world have been looking for ways to sustain their work amid the disruption. One organization supporting local peacebuilders, Peace Starts Here, has through co–creation sessions where peacebuilders are finding creative ways to sustain their work—proof that grassroots resilience cannot be frozen along with international grants.
Across the globe, the ripple effects are being felt:
- In the United States, USAID's closure and the U.S. Institute of Peace downsizing at its D.C. headquarters fueled growing uncertainty in the peacebuilding sector.
- In Latin America—notably Venezuela—fear and instability are deepening amid increased deportations and crackdowns on activists.
- In Africa, political tensions and armed conflict in countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo are worsening as critical international support disappears.
- In the Middle East, fragile peace efforts are further undermined by reduced funding, jeopardizing political and humanitarian gains.
- In Asia, following a recent earthquake in Myanmar, urgent humanitarian needs persist. Whereas the U.S. once led rapid response efforts, now others are stepping in—though often without the resources or expertise that USAID once provided.
What’s next for the global peacebuilding sector
Among the sectors affected, peacebuilding efforts worldwide have taken a severe hit. For decades, the U.S. served as a major funder of global peace initiatives—supporting mediation, peace negotiations, and capacity building in conflict–affected regions. But this moment presents more than just a crisis—it presents an invitation to reflect and radically rethink how peacebuilding is carried out. It is time to shift the power from the centralized funders to those on the frontlines—from externally driven priorities to community–rooted action.
Shifting the power from dependency to agency
Breaking the cycle of dependency. Many small, community–based organizations have long depended on external funding—often from white–led institutions with rigid frameworks and top–down approaches. These external actors too often impose solutions that fail to resonate with local realities. In some cases, their presence exacerbates harm by promoting dependency, reinforcing power imbalances, and inadvertently enabling corruption or exploitation. In truth, short–term project cycles prevent long–term impact. Communities find themselves cycling through redundant interventions dictated by changing donor priorities instead of responding to their actual needs.
Strengthening community–led peacebuilding. One of the lessons from this crisis is that peacebuilding does not need to be expensive to be effective. Across the globe, communities have always engaged in informal, volunteer–led peacebuilding efforts. In the Philippines, the spirit of Bayanihan—mutual aid and collective care—remains strong. From organizing conflict mediation to supporting the bereaved, communities continue to build peace with or without formal support. In rural communities, peace circles can happen under trees, and dialogue can be nurtured with home–cooked meals. Healing took place through collective rituals, storytelling, and songs long before foreign aid ever arrived. These traditional practices must be valued and strengthened, not replaced.
The unseen harm of external grants. While international funding has enabled vital work, it has also created unhealthy competition and dependency. Large grants often go to organizations unequipped to manage them effectively, resulting in financial mismanagement and, at times, further harm. Moreover, grassroots organizations are too often forced to tailor their work to donor expectations rather than community needs. This compromises authenticity and effectiveness. When priorities are externally defined, peacebuilders lose their autonomy.
Reclaiming local agency. This moment calls for courage and creativity. Some local peacebuilding organizations are now relying on savings, volunteerism, and alternative funding sources. But more than that, we are beginning to reclaim our power—as practitioners grounded in lived experience, cultural wisdom, and deep commitment. The more we rely on external aid, the more vulnerable we become. The less we are seen, the more we must assert our narratives, our strategies, and our visions for peace. We do not need to wait for donors to take action. We already have the tools. We already know. We already have each other.
Now more than ever, we need those working on the frontlines to continue their efforts even without external funding. We must strengthen our capacities and deepen our collective resilience. And we must demonstrate to the communities we serve that our commitment is not project–based, not tethered to financial rewards or global recognition, but grounded in genuine intent to rebuild and transform—one community at a time.
