Private donors gave more than $125M to keep foreign aid programs going after US cuts – AP News

Report on the Impact of U.S. Foreign Aid Suspension on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Challenge to Global Development Progress

A sudden suspension of United States foreign assistance created a significant funding gap for numerous international programs critical to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report details the subsequent mobilization of private philanthropy, which acted as an emergency stopgap to sustain initiatives aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The response highlights the critical role of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) in times of crisis, as non-state actors collaborated to mitigate the negative impacts on vulnerable populations.

Disruption to SDG Attainment and Philanthropic Response

Threats to Foundational SDGs

The withdrawal of approximately $64 billion in U.S. foreign aid directly jeopardized progress on several core SDGs. The funding cuts posed immediate risks to established programs targeting the most vulnerable communities worldwide. Key areas impacted include:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): Anti-poverty programs, including those that foster entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency, faced termination.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Nutrition initiatives designed to combat malnutrition and ensure food security were defunded.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Programs providing treatment for neglected tropical diseases and other critical health services were halted.

Mobilization of Private Capital for the Goals (SDG 17)

In response to the funding crisis, a coalition of private donors, foundations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) mobilized over $125 million in emergency funding within eight months. This effort exemplified SDG 17 in action, forging new partnerships to address the void left by government aid.

1. Project Resource Optimization (PRO): An initiative led by former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) experts identified 80 high-impact, cost-effective programs aligned with various SDGs.
2. Strategic Funding: PRO successfully secured over $110 million in charitable grants to ensure the continuation of these 80 prioritized programs.
3. Collaborative Funds: Other emergency mechanisms, including a joint Rapid Response Fund by Founders Pledge and The Life You Can Save, raised an additional $15 million, channeling funds from over 1,300 individuals to support SDG-focused projects.

Case Studies in SDG Program Continuity

Helen Keller Intl: Sustaining Progress on SDG 2 and SDG 3

Helen Keller Intl, an organization focused on health and nutrition, faced the termination of programs vital to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being). Through the intervention of private funders guided by PRO, the organization was able to secure $1.5 million to continue a pared-down version of a critical nutrition program in Nigeria, which originally had a $7 million annual budget. This emergency funding ensured that essential services were not completely lost.

Village Enterprise: Advancing SDG 1 and SDG 8

Village Enterprise, a nonprofit implementing an anti-poverty program in Rwanda, received $1.3 million through PRO. This funding allowed the continuation of its work, which directly supports SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by helping individuals establish small businesses. The organization supplemented this with an additional $2 million from its own donor appeals and a previous unrestricted grant, demonstrating a multi-faceted funding strategy to navigate the crisis.

Future Outlook and Challenges

Limitations and Long-Term Sustainability

While the philanthropic response was substantial, it could not fully replace the scale of government funding. NGOs were forced to reduce program scope to only the most essential components. Experts note the risk of creating a “moral hazard,” where private philanthropy is expected to resolve crises created by governmental policy shifts. The long-term sustainability of programs contributing to the SDGs remains uncertain without consistent and predictable institutional support.

U.S. Policy Shift and Implications for the SDGs

The U.S. administration has indicated a strategic pivot away from traditional aid, prioritizing trade and investment agreements. This policy shift introduces further uncertainty for the global development sector. According to former USAID Chief Economist Dean Karlan, the lack of a clear and effective strategy for future U.S. development spending raises concerns about the continued progress toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article directly mentions an “antipoverty program in Rwanda that helps people start small businesses” run by the nonprofit Village Enterprise. This program, which lost its USAID funding and was subsequently supported by private donors through Project Resource Optimization (PRO), is a clear initiative aimed at eradicating poverty by creating economic opportunities.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article highlights the work of Helen Keller Intl, which ran USAID-funded programs “providing nutrition.” Specifically, it mentions a nutrition program in Nigeria that required a pared-down budget of $1.5 million from private funders to continue its operations after government aid was cut. This directly relates to the goal of ending hunger and malnutrition.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Helen Keller Intl’s programs also focused on “treatment for neglected tropical diseases.” The loss of USAID funding jeopardized these critical health interventions, which are essential for ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire narrative revolves around the breakdown of a traditional partnership (U.S. government aid) and the formation of new ones to fill the void. It details how private donors, foundations (GiveWell, MacKenzie Scott), nonprofits (Helen Keller Intl, Village Enterprise), and coordinating bodies (Project Resource Optimization, Unlock Aid) collaborated to mobilize financial resources and continue development work. The article contrasts the government’s withdrawal of official development assistance with the emergency response from the private and philanthropic sectors.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 1 (No Poverty)
   • Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance. The Village Enterprise program in Rwanda, which “helps people start small businesses,” directly aligns with this target by providing access to economic resources and promoting entrepreneurship among the poor.
2. Under SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)
   • Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition, including achieving, by 2025, the internationally agreed targets on stunting and wasting in children under 5 years of age, and address the nutritional needs of adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women and older persons. The nutrition program in Nigeria run by Helen Keller Intl is a direct effort to combat malnutrition, making this target highly relevant.
3. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)
   • Target 3.3: By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable diseases. The article’s specific mention of programs for the “treatment for neglected tropical diseases” directly corresponds to this target.
4. Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)
   • Target 17.2: Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments. The article discusses the failure to meet this target, citing the Trump administration’s decision to freeze and ultimately cut U.S. foreign aid, which “totaled $64 billion in 2023.”
   • Target 17.3: Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources. The core of the article describes the successful mobilization of private funds to counteract the loss of government aid. It provides numerous examples, such as the “$125 million” raised by emergency funds and the “$110 million” mobilized by PRO.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources. The effort by Project Resource Optimization (PRO), a team of former USAID employees who used their expertise to identify impactful projects and connect them with private donors, is a perfect example of a multi-stakeholder partnership mobilizing financial resources and expertise.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 1, 2, and 3:
   • The article implies indicators but does not provide specific data. For the antipoverty program (SDG 1), an implied indicator would be the number of small businesses created or the increase in income for participants. For the nutrition and health programs (SDG 2 & 3), implied indicators would be the number of people receiving nutritional support or treatment for neglected tropical diseases. The article focuses on the financial inputs to keep these programs running rather than their outcome metrics.
2. For SDG 17:
   • The article is rich with specific, quantifiable indicators related to financial flows.
     • Indicator 17.2.1 (Net official development assistance): The article provides a baseline figure for U.S. foreign aid, stating it “totaled $64 billion in 2023,” the freezing of which is the article’s central conflict.
     • Indicator 17.3.1 (Additional financial resources mobilized from multiple sources): The article provides numerous data points that serve as direct indicators of mobilized private capital:
       • Total emergency funds mobilized: $125 million
       • Funds mobilized by Project Resource Optimization (PRO): $110 million
       • Funds from GiveWell: $34 million
       • Funds from the Rapid Response Fund (Founders Pledge and The Life You Can Save): $13 million from 1,300 individuals
       • Funds from the Foreign Aid Bridge Fund (Unlock Aid): $2 million from 400 donors
       • Donation from the Ma-Weavers: Over $1 million

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: apnews.com