Authors of the research: Tom Vargas, Aisling Leow
Author of the summary: Sarina Wong
A global lifeline
In January 2025, the US government initiated a 90-day pause on all new foreign aid. This pause, introduced by executive order, was followed by a substantial downsizing of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The agency’s workforce decreased from approximately 10,000 to fewer than 900 employees, and by March, only 18% of USAID programs were expected to continue under the State Department’s management.
Historically, the US has been the largest single provider of foreign aid, contributing around $68 billion annually—about 30% of global official development assistance across sectors including health, humanitarian relief, economic development, governance, and education. No other donor matches this scale or breadth. A funding cut of this magnitude has wide-reaching implications for the global development system. The consequences are stark:
Lives lost: From January to September 9, 2025, an estimated 110,000 additional AIDS-related deaths have occurred due to funding pauses. Malaria deaths could rise by 40% within a year.
Critical supplies stranded or wasted: Food for severely malnourished children, HIV drugs, and medical oxygen sit in warehouses due to legal and logistical barriers. Earlier this year, the administration decided to burn $10M worth of contraceptives.
Organizations shuttered: Since the beginning of the new administration, the US government has made very little progress in awarding grants and funding to the causes it has said will remain—this means trouble for development contractors, some of which have closed programs.
Infrastructure dismantled: Supply chains, data systems, and logistical backbones that make aid cost-effective are breaking down, costs are rising, and restarting programs will be harder.
Both short-term pauses and long-term cuts are likely to cause significant, lasting harm. The speed and scale of change make it essential for donors to act strategically.
Why this matters to donors
If you’re a donor, foundation, or philanthropist wondering how to respond, you’re not alone. At Rethink Priorities, we’ve been hearing from funders across the world who want to help, but aren’t sure where their dollars will make the biggest difference in this chaotic moment.
Last spring, we spent several weeks speaking to experts, reviewing data, and mapping funding gaps. The result: a practical framework for giving in a foreign-aid crisis, whether you’re focused on a single cause or choosing among specific interventions.
Two paths for smart giving in a crisis
1. The cause approach
If you already have a cause you care deeply about (say, education, climate, or global health), start by asking three key questions:
How dependent is my cause on US funding?
If the US has historically been a significant donor, there’s a stronger case for increased funding needs today.
We’ve obtained and cleaned foreign aid data from the US government that shows the size of past investments here. Consulting with experts is another effective strategy.
Will things get much worse without immediate funding?
Some areas deteriorate fast without support, e.g., malaria prevention before the rainy season, severe malnutrition programs, and certain vaccine campaigns.If you think things within your cause area will deteriorate very quickly, then there’s a stronger case for increased funding today.
We suggest starting with your intuitions and building these out through desk research (see our worked example here, built in 3-4 hours), talking to experts, or hiring others to do this work for you (balancing against the size of your potential donation).
Will anyone else step in?
Many traditional donors are also cutting back. Some governments can fill gaps; others can’t.Look for neglected causes at risk of falling through the cracks.
Form opinions about what donors will fund using news resources, desk research, and tools like The Budget Cuts Tracker.
We have identified, but not yet vetted, several funds designed to fill current gaps or adapt to the present challenge. More information is available in Table 1 (see below).
2. The funding opportunity approach
If you’re deciding between specific projects, focus on three filters:
Total impact: Does this intervention create significant, measurable outcomes, and possibly support other programs through shared infrastructure?
Neglect: Is it overlooked by other donors? Some of the highest-leverage opportunities today are research projects at risk of being abandoned before completion.
Counterfactual effect: Will your money actually change the outcome? “Last-mile” projects—where a single grant can finish the work—are often high-return.
Table 1: Overview of existing funding opportunities to fill US foreign aid gaps
Takeaway
The US foreign aid pause has created a global funding shock. The needs are overwhelming, but freezing in place is the wrong response. Whether you follow your cause, your head, or your gut, the best donors combine urgency with strategy during these times.
We hope our framework helps you identify opportunities where your dollars can save the most lives, preserve the most progress, and prevent the greatest losses.
Read the full report here.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Sarina Wong for writing the research summary, to Thomas Vargas, John Firth, and Ula Zarosa for review, and to Shane Coburn for copyediting.
Thank you!
Thank you for taking the time to read our Substack. We will continue to provide this content on a regular basis. If you would like to support our efforts, please subscribe below or share our posts with friends and colleagues.
We’re also always looking for feedback on our work. You can share your thoughts about this publication anonymously or reply to this email/post with suggestions for improvement or any questions.
By default, we’re sharing this Substack via email with Rethink Priorities newsletter members. Please feel free to unsubscribe from this Substack if you’d prefer to stick with our monthly, general newsletter.