What the End of USAID Continues to Mean for Our Country and Philanthropy

Sep 23

Key Takeaways

The end of USAID represents a broader transformation of U.S. foreign assistance. Since early 2025, most USAID awards were terminated, much of its workforce was eliminated, and remaining programs were transferred to the State Department, changing both how U.S. assistance is administered and who delivers it.
The effects extend beyond lost funding. The transition disrupted long-standing partnerships, technical expertise, local networks, and institutional knowledge that supported global health, food security, humanitarian response, education, and economic development.
The United States has adopted a different approach to global health assistance. The administration's America First Global Health Strategy emphasizes disease surveillance, outbreak prevention, bilateral agreements, and greater financial responsibility for partner countries rather than returning to the previous USAID model.
The shift is occurring amid a much broader decline in international aid. OECD preliminary data show official development assistance fell 23.1% in 2025—the largest annual contraction on record—and the OECD projects another decline in 2026.
Private philanthropy cannot replace government foreign assistance at the same scale. Foundations and individual donors have significantly fewer resources than governments, making a dollar-for-dollar replacement of lost public funding unrealistic.
Philanthropy can play a distinct and important role in what comes next. Flexible funding, rapid-response capital, investment in local organizations, and support for nonprofit capacity can help preserve critical services and strengthen organizations navigating the changing international aid system.

When the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) began in early 2025, much of the initial conversation understandably focused on what was being lost.

Programs stopped. Grants and contracts were terminated. Organizations reduced staff. Long-standing relationships between the U.S. government, international nonprofits, and local partners were disrupted.

More than a year later, we have a clearer picture of what those changes mean.

This was not simply the restructuring of a government agency. It was part of a much larger shift in the international aid landscape and the way the United States defines its role in that landscape. Philanthropy is also still determining what its role should be in the system that follows.

For donors, foundations, and nonprofit leaders, the question is no longer simply, What happened to USAID?

It is: What happens now?

The Scale of the Change Is Becoming Clearer

USAID had spent more than six decades supporting humanitarian assistance, global health, food security, economic development, disaster response, education, and other programs around the world.

Beginning in January 2025, the Trump administration ordered a review and pause of U.S. foreign assistance. A subsequent stop-work order froze much of the assistance already underway. Most USAID awards were later cancelled, much of the agency's workforce was eliminated, and responsibility for remaining programs was transferred to the State Department. Approximately 80% of the 770 global-health awards it identified were listed as terminated, representing $12.7 billion in unobligated funding. The legal and structural challenges from the progression of those changes and their effects on U.S. global health and foreign assistance programs have continued through to today.

The transition has also created an entirely different administrative structure for U.S. foreign assistance. A July 2026 State Department Inspector General review found that 17 State Department bureaus and offices were administering 1,504 programs and awards transferred from USAID, with $51.5 billion in obligated value and expected costs exceeding $86 billion.

But the story is larger than the institution of USAID. It’s about real people and real communities.

On the one-year anniversary of the dissolution of USAID, various studies reflected on the loss of programs, highlighting startling realities like the over 27 million people experiencing food insecurity and the predicted loss of 9.4 million lives by 2030.

The consequences also became visible in disease surveillance and outbreak response. The response to the Ebola outbreak in May was fragmented and the lack of support from USAID programs likely slowed detection, putting more lives at risk.

The America First Global Health Strategy

In September 2025, the administration released its America First Global Health Strategy, providing the clearest roadmap yet for the future of U.S. global-health engagement.

KFF's analysis of the strategy notes that the United States committed to maintaining 100% of then-current funding levels for certain health commodities and frontline healthcare workers addressing HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, and polio through fiscal year 2026, with U.S. contributions expected to decline afterward as partner countries assume more of the costs. But not all countries can afford to do so.

Global health security also occupies an important place in the strategy. The administration is emphasizing surveillance systems, laboratories, data sharing, and the ability to detect and contain outbreaks abroad before they pose a greater threat to Americans.

In other words, the strategy does not represent a return to the USAID model. It represents a different philosophy of international health assistance.

International Aid Is Becoming More Selective

Global health is only one piece of the broader transformation.

The federal government has also changed the conditions attached to assistance. Earlier this year, the State Department expanded restrictions governing foreign-aid recipients under what it calls its Promoting Human Flourishing in Foreign Assistance Policy, affecting a broad range of nonmilitary foreign assistance.

At the same time, the shift away from USAID has changed who delivers aid. The previous system relied heavily on nonprofits and long-term development partnerships. The emerging system places greater emphasis on State Department oversight and bilateral agreements with national governments.

That distinction matters.

The gap left behind is therefore not only a funding gap. In some places, it is also a gap in institutional knowledge, nonprofit capacity, local partnerships, technical expertise, and the networks that allowed resources to reach communities.

Philanthropy Cannot Replace Government Funding

Private philanthropy cannot simply fill the hole left by government aid.

The scale is too large.

Government resources operate at a scale that foundations and individual donors generally cannot replicate. Candid has estimated that private foundations would have to increase their grantmaking by approximately 282% to make up for the potential $303 billion gap if U.S. government grantmaking disappeared.

Clearly, that is not a realistic expectation. But perhaps replacing government funding is the wrong goal.

Philanthropy has something government funding often does not: the ability to move quickly, accept risk, provide flexible capital, experiment, and support organizations that may fall outside traditional government funding structures.

The question, then, is not whether philanthropy can become the new USAID.

It is whether philanthropy can become more strategic about what it is uniquely positioned to do.

What Comes Next?

No one can know precisely what the international aid system will look like five or ten years from now.

But current evidence gives us some indications of where it may be heading.

Government aid budgets are likely to remain under pressure in the near term. And the needs are not decreasing.

As a world leader, the United States signaled to other nations the unimportance of international aid, resulting in aid programs falling over 20% across the globe in 2025.

That makes several developments increasingly important: stronger local organizations, more diversified nonprofit revenue, greater collaboration between philanthropic and institutional funders, flexible capital, and funding structures capable of responding rapidly to emerging needs.

Philanthropy will not replace USAID.

But philanthropy can help determine what comes next.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happened to USAID?

Beginning in January 2025, the Trump administration paused and reviewed U.S. foreign assistance, after which most USAID awards were terminated and much of the agency's workforce was eliminated. Remaining programs were transferred to the State Department, creating a substantially different structure for administering U.S. foreign assistance.

What happened to programs previously administered by USAID?

Some programs were terminated, while others were transferred to the State Department. The transition affected programs involving global health, humanitarian assistance, food security, economic development, refugee assistance, education, and other international development priorities.

How has the end of USAID affected nonprofit organizations?

Many international nonprofits lost grants or contracts, reduced staff, scaled back programs, or reconsidered their operating models. The changes also disrupted partnerships and networks built over decades among U.S. agencies, international nonprofits, national governments, and locally led organizations.

What is the America First Global Health Strategy?

Released by the Trump administration in September 2025, the America First Global Health Strategy outlines its approach to U.S. global-health engagement. It emphasizes priorities including infectious-disease prevention, surveillance, laboratories and data sharing, while envisioning greater responsibility for partner governments to finance health programs over time.

Is the United States still funding global health programs?

Yes. The restructuring did not end all U.S. global-health assistance. Certain programs and health interventions continue under the State Department and other federal entities. However, the structure, priorities, conditions, and levels of U.S. support have changed substantially from the previous USAID-centered system.

Is international aid declining globally?

Yes. OECD preliminary figures show official development assistance from its Development Assistance Committee members and associates fell 23.1% in real terms in 2025, the largest annual contraction on record. U.S. official development assistance fell 56.9% from 2024, while other major donors also reduced assistance. The OECD projects further overall declines in 2026, although individual countries' trajectories differ.

Why do reductions in international aid matter to people in the United States?

International assistance can support disease surveillance, outbreak response, humanitarian stability, food security, and other programs with effects that cross national borders. Global-health programs, in particular, can help identify and contain infectious-disease threats before they spread more widely.

Can philanthropy replace the funding previously provided through USAID?

Not at the same scale. Government foreign-assistance budgets have historically been much larger than private philanthropic resources available for international development. Philanthropy can help address specific gaps, but expecting foundations and individual donors to replace government assistance dollar for dollar is generally unrealistic.

What can philanthropy do that government aid sometimes cannot?

Private philanthropy can often provide flexible funding, move resources relatively quickly, fund experimentation, support organizational infrastructure, and invest directly in local or emerging organizations. These characteristics can make philanthropic capital particularly useful during periods of transition or disruption.

Why are locally led organizations increasingly important?

Local organizations often possess deep knowledge of their communities, established relationships, and an understanding of local institutions and needs. As international funding structures change, strengthening locally led organizations can help preserve capacity and make communities less dependent on any single international funding source.

What does the changing international aid landscape mean for donors?

For donors interested in global causes, the changing landscape makes it increasingly important to understand not only where funding has disappeared, but also which organizations possess the local relationships, expertise, and infrastructure needed to continue delivering services. Flexible and sustained support can help nonprofits adapt while longer-term funding models develop.

Why is Charity Bridge Fund following changes to USAID and international aid?

Changes to U.S. foreign assistance directly affect nonprofit organizations providing healthcare, humanitarian relief, food security, education, refugee assistance, and other essential services. Charity Bridge Fund works to give nonprofits greater visibility when funding becomes uncertain and to help donors understand where philanthropic support can make a meaningful difference. As the international aid system evolves, connecting donors with organizations experiencing real funding gaps can help preserve essential nonprofit capacity.