Implications of USAID freeze on donations
By Sanjay @ 2025-02-02T11:11 (+100)
Has anyone considered what donors can do in response to the USAID freeze?
Categories of actions which spring to my mind:
- Givewell top charities may be more cost effective now, because USAID is no longer taking lower hanging fruit. Analysis needed: to what extent is existing funding for each intervention coming from USAID, or likely to be affected by withdrawal of USAID funding, including (potentially complex) indirect effects.
- Funding political action to ensure the most effective interventions continue to be funded. Analysis needed: which organisation(s) are best positioned to make this work? Which interventions currently have an exemption (ie are allowed to continue)? Which criteria will the administration use to decide which interventions are allowed to be kept? Tractability: is there any hope that the administration can be influenced by civil society at all?
- Donate directly to USAID. Analysis needed: is this even possible? How effective will it be?
My thoughts on the categories of action are quite quick and dirty, as are my thoughts on the analysis needed, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm missing something material here.
Dorothy M. @ 2025-02-02T21:45 (+53)
This is a good question Sanjay. Here are my thoughts off the top of my head:
- GiveWell top charities: I'd be curious to hear what others who are more familiar with GiveWell think - but I my hunch is that in the short-term GiveWell top charities may become less cost-effective, because the abrupt stop of US aid is destabilizing the global health delivery infrastructure around the world. Many top charities, like Helen Keller International, have historically received substantial awards from USAID, in addition to private sector donations. If they have to reduce staff (both HQ and in-country) from funding shortfalls from one donor, it could compromise their ability to provide these programs affordably at scale.
- Funding political action: this Administration is taking moves to illegally dismantle USAID and move the agency under the State Department (which many argue would require an act of Congress). USAID is under existential threat, and I think without addressing this, the ability of private NGOs or donors to fill in gaps will be moot. No INGO or private donor can replace USAID's global footprint. Most USAID staff live overseas and are host country nationals; and the network of USAID missions in partner countries spend years building relationships with government ministries. This weekend the USAID.gov site went dark and as of writing (2/2/25 @ 1pm) it's still down as well as the data repositories, reports to congress and other information that used to publicly available. The Administration has purged the agency - at least 50% of the global health bureau workforce was terminated and probably the same for the humanitarian assistance bureau. Many advocacy organizations that also implement USG funded programs are under a communications gag order.
- Is there hope the administration can be influenced by civil society? I believe so. I expect next week lawsuits will be introduced on behalf of NGOs/implementers, plus the Administration's actions to dismantle USAID are not permitted under law. If Congress sits down and takes this - it will be a devastating blow to our system of checks and balances and their oversight role of US funding. You can find information about contacting congress or submitting pieces to the media here (disclaimer: I work at RESULTS) other groups that also don't receive USG funding may have online actions going up imminently.
- I don't think it is possible to donate directly to USAID but I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS if it is. There is virtually no oversight at the agency right now. These catastrophic decisions are being made by Peter Marocco, who is a non-Senate-confirmed appointee. We are at risk of Congress abdicating their responsibility of oversight over our previously appropriated tax dollars. And for those that want to get more involved, the Administration has purged the USAID Legislative and Public Affairs division (LPA) - which interfaces with Congress - severing an important line for accountability and oversight. There's no guarantee additional funds right now would be used for highly effective global health programs. Plus, this aid freeze is in violation of the Prompt Payment Act, so it's possible money that additional funds USAID receives that hadn't been appropriated/obligated for a particular purpose could be used to pay for litigation or paying back interest owed to contractors.
Yelnats T.J. @ 2025-02-03T21:59 (+20)
A little off-topic and self-promoting, but I thought this take aged well, and it's a good reminder that EAs should not neglect the long game of democracy fragility in the US during these non-election years because even securing liberal democracy at the ballot box takes investments years in advance.
Ian Turner @ 2025-02-04T16:18 (+12)
I agree that it aged well in terms of the expected effects of certain electoral outcomes, but the way I see it, that is different from claiming that electoral interventions would be cost-effective (even in retrospect). There was so much money and effort put into the election, it's not at all clear to me that EA would have been able to make a difference, even with the full weight of the movement dedicated to it.
NickLaing @ 2025-02-04T21:03 (+6)
I would go further and say it's pretty clear that my even if the movement like you say put it's weight behind the election, it would almost certainly have made no difference.
david_reinstein @ 2025-02-05T00:34 (+6)
But even if it had a very small change of swaying the outcome it could have been worth it in EV terms of course.
NickLaing @ 2025-02-05T04:41 (+5)
I agree, but personally I would put this in Pascalls mugging territory of tiny chances. I'm aware everyone's "Pascalls threshold" is different.
Ian Turner @ 2025-02-10T18:03 (+1)
It's not even clear to me that EA trying to change the election would be positive EV. Look at what's happened with AI.
Wyatt S. @ 2025-02-07T17:05 (+1)
There are other interventions that would be worth considering, like electoral reform. For example, there were ranked-choice voting ballot initiatives in several states, and that kind of reform has comparatively few direct workers. While those interventions are funded, they are not as heavily funded as direct electoral campaigning. Other alternatives like STAR voting or quadratic voting that could have a bigger payoff could be more neglected.
Ian Turner @ 2025-02-10T18:04 (+1)
EA is funding some of that stuff, e.g., The Center for Election Science.
James&Joe @ 2025-02-26T22:20 (+2)
See here (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FTTPCtkizkAQ9fkvM/unicode-wvyp) for the Rapid Response Fund: https://www.founderspledge.com/funds/rapid-response-fund. It's an opportunity to donate to help mitigate the worst immediate consequences of the aid freeze.
Arturo Macias @ 2025-02-03T07:28 (+2)
Political pressure shall be applied on the European Comission and the UK Government: