...
By Robert Alexander
Senior Crime & Court Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
When the Trump administration abruptly froze billions of dollars in foreign aid and began dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the headlines focused on geopolitical strategy.
But, far less visible were the thousands of livelihoods and vital public health systems left vulnerable—not only abroad but within the United States.
Former USAID staff warn that rebuilding these networks and the trust they embodied will take years and cost far more than the quick budget savings achieved, while private philanthropy cannot replace the scale of federal support.
Read More on News
Why It Matters
The abrupt freeze of billions in U.S. foreign aid has fractured decades of global health and development work. Programs for HIV, malaria, and maternal health have stalled, tens of thousands of skilled professionals lost jobs, and U.S. nonprofits cut deeply into their staff.
The impact reaches beyond vulnerable communities to U.S. influence, security, and American livelihoods.
What To Know
For decades, USAID has served as one of the three "Ds" of U.S. national security—defense, diplomacy, and development.
Its programs have built disease surveillance systems, trained local health workers, and created a pipeline of highly skilled professionals dedicated to global health and humanitarian assistance.
That infrastructure unraveled almost overnight when a 90-day hold on foreign aid funds took effect the day of the presidential inauguration.
In the White House’s "Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid" executive order of January 20, 2025, the administration argued that "the United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values."
...
The Direct Impact
In exclusive interviews, Newsweek spoke with three people directly affected by the Trump administration’s policy changes.
"I think the shock was how quickly everything was done," said Dr. Catherine Kyobutungi, Executive Director of the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) in Nairobi.
"If this had been done maybe over a one-year time frame … you have one year to figure out what to do. But this was like an overnight disruption of a huge ecosystem."
Kyobutungi’s center was partly funded by U.S. sources, including USAID and the National Institutes of Health.
Although U.S. government support represented a small portion of APHRC’s total budget, the abrupt halt left two USAID-funded projects without resources, affecting 21 staff positions.
"When we budget, we know that this year we have X amount of money," she explained. "If you remove part of my budget just like that overnight, I have to figure out what to do with 21 people … We had to scrap almost everything that was to do with staff development, staff growth, staff training."
In Kenya, employment law complicates rapid layoffs, creating legal and financial exposure for organizations. APHRC reassigned people to unrelated projects, drew on limited unrestricted funds, and canceled professional development to preserve jobs. Many other groups were less insulated.
"For organizations who relied maybe 70 or 80 percent on USAID funding, it was devastating," Kyobutungi said.
The Effect Cascades Globally
Laura Andes, Chief Operations and Programs Officer at Charity Navigator, based in Saddle River New Jersey, and a 10-year USAID veteran, estimates that about 50,000 jobs were disrupted worldwide, many held by highly educated professionals in countries like Uganda, Malawi and Kenya.
"These were the most educated people … who went to Oxford or the best universities, came back to their country, were working running programs … and then ‘poof’ overnight they don’t have an income and a livelihood," Andes said.
The loss reaches beyond immediate employment: "It takes infrastructure to start an organization and keep it going. And all that infrastructure has collapsed. You can’t turn this back on overnight."
U.S.-based nonprofits were hit hard as well. "Many of them only had three or four months of cash on hand," Andes explained. "So immediately all the amazing programs that they were doing on the ground were gone."
Those cuts translated into deep layoffs, with some U.S. nonprofits reducing staff by 50 to 60 percent.
For individuals, the economic and psychological toll has been profound. Christy Grimsley, who spent nearly two decades in international development after joining the Peace Corps in 2003, was laid off from a training and leadership development firm that contracted with USAID.
The company she worked for, EnCompass, based in Rockville, Maryland, lost over 400 jobs in less than a month. "January 20 to February 14 … it certainly wasn’t enough time to absorb what had happened, let alone make plans for the future," she said. "Taking something, dismantling something, is relatively cheap, but reestablishing it—finding that expertise, building those relationships, reestablishing the trust—it’s all gone! You can’t just put that back overnight. It has been nothing short of devastating."
The domestic ripples are real. Grimsley, a single parent, lost health insurance coverage for herself and her 11-year-old daughter who she adopted from China.
"She understands it," Grimsley said of her child. "I asked her … how do you think this, my layoff, has impacted our family? And she said one word: money."
The cuts also severed ties built over years between U.S. development professionals and their overseas counterparts.
"Relationships between USAID missions and government counterparts … the level of trust lost—there is only one word: devastating," Grimsley reflected.
Rebuilding these networks, she warned, could take years and significant resources.
...
Shift Toward 'Self-Reliance'
Even where some funding was later restored, restrictions on so-called "nonessential" costs—training, travel, administrative support—left organizations struggling to operate.
Kyobutungi described projects forced to run "highly constrained" without the complementary programs and support staff that once enabled effective delivery of HIV, malaria, and maternal health initiatives.
The administration has signaled a shift toward "self-reliance," seeking bilateral agreements that require recipient nations to co-finance health programs and meet performance benchmarks.
Sector experts acknowledge the goal but question execution. "Shared responsibility is a good goal," Andes noted, "but it still needs resources to achieve."
Meanwhile, private giving has begun to fill some gaps—but only slightly. Charity Navigator launched a dedicated list of affected nonprofits; donors contributed over $763,000 in the first weeks, a 37 percent increase compared with the same period the year before.
Some organizations saw donation spikes up to 500 times normal levels. Still, Andes called it "a drop in the bucket" relative to the federal shortfall.
The question now facing policymakers and the public is how to preserve critical capacity while pursuing reform.
Kyobutungi, despite her critique of inefficiencies in the aid system, urged a more deliberate approach. "The system needs reform, but therefore needs to be human," she said. "Perhaps they would have ended up with the same outcome if this had been done in a much more humane, respectful way."
Andes argues that U.S. strategic interests are also at stake. "The nonprofit sector is the infrastructure that they want to leverage to make a difference in the world," she said.
Losing it means losing a trusted channel for future policy goals and global engagement.
For Grimsley, the deeper wound is the apparent abandonment of long-standing bipartisan commitments. "USAID and foreign aid has had bipartisan support for decades," she said. "If it is critical to our national security … have we made a grave mistake? And what is the fallout going to be? Because I don’t think we’re seeing it yet."
What People Are Saying
Dr. Catherine Kyobutungi on the power imbalance in aid decisions and the impact on local actors: "So you don’t have a lot of say in receiving, and then you don’t have a lot of say in it being taken away. So, somebody can just give or take at a whim."
Christy Grimsley speaking to the personal and systemic loss of highly specialized knowledge: "I had developed an expertise that was very specific to USAID programming … that is not of any use anymore, essentially."
Laura Andes: "What I’m most afraid of is these were leaders of nonprofits … and when the next money comes in, there’s nobody to pick up the mantle and do that work."
U.S. Department of State statement, January 26, 2025: "President Trump stated clearly that the United States is no longer going to blindly dole out money with no return for the American people."
What Happens Next
The path forward is uncertain. The administration aims to replace broad aid with "self-reliance" agreements requiring recipient nations to share costs and meet targets, but experts warn cutting support before local capacity exists risks lasting harm. Meanwhile, nonprofits are cutting staff, seeking donations, and shifting focus, but private giving can’t fill the federal gap.
Rebuilding health programs and partnerships will take years and far more resources than were saved, risking U.S. health security, influence, and specialized expertise.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines