Western aid is in its death throes. What comes next?
The Dismantling of Aid Institutions
The international development landscape is witnessing a profound and painful transformation as donor nations systematically dismantle their aid architecture. The Trump administration's actions against USAID represent the most dramatic episode in an ongoing pattern where aid institutions are sacrificed to domestic politics. This follows the disturbing precedent established by the dissolution of AusAID, CIDA, NZAID, and DFID—each representing a calculated move to ensure diminishing aid resources flow through controlled channels serving specific ideological and economic interests, affecting the lives of millions of people and the planet.
For Trump's administration, this appears to be part of a larger push to diminish multilateralism and reduce state responsibility in global development, consolidating influence in ways even harder to scrutinize and challenge. These institutional collapses reveal the growing disconnect between stated global commitments and political realities in what we currently label as "donor countries", whose identity as such seems to be dying.
The Contradiction of Partnership
The rhetoric of partnership masks a reality of control. Northern donors speak of localization while systematically centralizing decision-making power. This contradiction has become increasingly apparent as governments in major donor countries preach sustainability and long-term commitment while their actions create unpredictability for organizations in so called recipient countries.
As programs start and stop, priorities shift, and commitments are made then abandoned as governments change, the UK's decision to redirect their aid budget toward military operations serves as a prime example of this pattern. Recipients are left to absorb the consequences of these decisions, a reminder of their peripheral status in the calculus of the aid-industrial complex and their toxic dependency on international aid.
Political Polarization with Global Impact
The aid sector has traditionally aligned with progressive politics in donor countries, creating inherent tensions when conservative governments take power. Aid agencies tend not to be filled with people who vote for conservative leaders like Trump. The elimination of aid institutions represents a deliberate reshaping of who controls resources and which values define international engagement.
For Trump and his allies, dismantling USAID means removing what they see as a bastion of 'woke' globalists—following the same logic driving attacks on DEI initiatives, climate funding, and multilateral cooperation. As Western democracies swing between political poles with increasing volatility, the consequences extend far beyond their borders.
While this represents democracy in action within donor countries, aid recipients don't vote in these elections yet must live with their consequences. The vanishing of USAID demonstrates just how extreme and unpredictable these internal political tensions have become for the world.
Beyond Crisis Management
The humanitarian impact of USAID's dismantling deserves immediate attention, but focusing solely on the immediate crisis misses the larger opportunity. This moment demands questioning whether the development paradigm itself—not just its current implementation—requires fundamental reimagining, as cooperation and the development system as we know it are dying.
As global challenges demand unprecedented cooperation, Northern approaches continue becoming more insular and unilateral. A significant portion of aid never reaches intended communities, filtered through multiple layers of intermediaries, consultants, and bureaucratic inefficiencies. The structures governing international aid are fundamentally distorted and undermining restorative justice, with relationships between 'partners' fraught with power imbalances.
Emerging Alternatives?
As funding disappears, we are reminded that communities have always been the first responders. The sudden decline in international aid will undoubtedly be painful, but it may hasten the necessary paradigm shift toward genuine localization. The withdrawal of international funding carries with it the possibility for community-owned solutions to flourish, rooted in solidarity and mutual support.
Diversifying funding sources is important, but the issue extends beyond money. The Unlock Aid initiative has launched the Foreign Aid Bridge Fund to support those affected by aid cuts, while in Africa, some governments are working to address funding gaps, seeking pathways toward foreign aid liberation and self-reliance. Another example is CIVICUS and RINGO’s “Reverse Call for Proposals”, an initiative aiming to shift power to national and local organisations by reimagining the INGO sector.
There is no shortage of ideas for reimagining an alternative eco-system for development in many parts of the world, but little evidence they are being taken seriously.
The Path Forward
Rethinking the aid system requires examining fundamental questions: Should efforts focus on creating an alternative system or transforming the existing one? How can power be redistributed to create more equitable partnerships?
If there is a lesson in the collapse of USAID, it is this: the Western aid-industrial complex is inherently fragile, self-serving, and unpredictable. If global cooperation on shared challenges is to succeed, something entirely new is needed. While the cycles of death and renewal are inherent to nature, in our systems we experience them as unprecedented and therefore become increasingly painful and damaging.
The vanishing of USAID, like its counterparts before it, provides an opportunity to create something different. Although many international actors focus on whether Trump's actions are creating openings for China and other global powers, we, at Disrupt Development, remain hopeful that these disruptions can catalyze something more transformative.
We see an opportunity to leverage our global community of practitioners to support this transformation. We stay committed to making a difference and to helping community organizations shift the power, navigate alternative funding sources, and facilitate donor collaborations that can strategically and adaptively allocate their funds. Our strengths in learning and evaluation can support organizations in giving significance to their impact.
Whatever a new system might look like, one principle remains clear: the global economy and the relationships that flourish within it must be designed to truly serve the wellbeing of all; a system built on trust, equity and value of all who relate within it, not just the strategic interests of powerful donor nations.
