\tThe Trump administration has negotiated dozens of bilateral health deals with African governments, which will receive billions of dollars that they can spend as they see fit.\u00a0 | Allison Robbert\/AFP via Getty Images\t<\/p>\n
A surprising quirk of the Trump administration is that every so often, it tries so hard to be anti-woke that it accidentally does something woke.\u00a0<\/p>\n
See, for example, the efforts of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who oversaw USAID\u2019s demise \u2014 directives that have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people \u2014 and who stood at the White House beside the president of Kenya a few months ago, railing against what he called the \u201cNGO industrial complex.\u201d<\/p>\n
Now, I don\u2019t know who taught Rubio that progressive catchphrase, but I doubt that he got it from INCITE!, the radical feminist collective that popularized a variation of the term in an anthology that examined the role of nonprofits in undermining social progress. In the two decades that followed, the idea of a nonprofit or \u2014 as they\u2019re often known in international contexts \u2014 NGO \u201cindustrial complex\u201d grew into a snarky self-critique for much of that sector\u2019s left-leaning young workforce. By the time Teen Vogue used the term in 2022, the phrase also hinted at an enduring related criticism of USAID\u2019s tendency to primarily fund Western nonprofits rather than local governments and organizations in recipient countries.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Key takeaways<\/p>\n
USAID\u2019s critics have long called for the agency to fund more local governments and groups, instead of relying on the \u201cNGO industrial complex\u201d to do its bidding.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration has embraced this critique, negotiating dozens of global health deals that put aid in the hands of local governments, not foreign NGOs.<\/p>\n
Ideally, this means more funding for local health systems, and foreign aid that\u2019s more cost-effective and better attuned to local needs.<\/p>\n
But this is global health MAGA-style after all, and skeptics fear the terms of the deals may be exploitative \u2014 and are already leading to deadly lapses in services.<\/p>\n
In an unexpected twist, this term has found its way into the vocabulary of a very Republican secretary of state, now reflecting a preference for funding foreign governments over non-governmental organizations (NGOs). \u201cIf we\u2019re trying to help countries, help the country,\u201d Rubio said in his remarks in December announcing a new $1.6 billion bilateral aid deal between the US State Department and Kenya. \u201cDon\u2019t help the NGO to go in and find a new line of business.\u201d<\/p>\n
Whatever one thinks of Rubio, he has a point. As part of the \u201cAmerica First Global Health Strategy\u201d announced last year, the Trump administration has embraced an approach to foreign aid that more left-leaning reformists have been talking about for years, a concept known as localization, or the idea that giving aid directly to local governments and organizations \u2014 not Western nonprofits \u2014 is the best and most cost-effective way to strengthen global aid overall and global health systems especially. In recent months, the US has negotiated dozens of deals between the State Department and African governments, which are set to collectively receive billions of dollars that they can spend as they see fit.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The logic might seem sound. But it hasn\u2019t happened sooner because it\u2019s also risky. It\u2019s harder to audit a foreign government than a well-established, well-connected NGO. And millions of lives are on the line. The transition from the one approach to the other is also fraught: Dismantling USAID has disrupted access to vital medications and health services around the world, leading to mass suffering and loss of life. It is unclear if this new strategy will be able to fill those lapses in care, especially for the women and children most vulnerable to aid cuts.<\/p>\n
But if there were ever a moment to blow up the entire old aid order, it\u2019s arguably now, when there is very little left to lose. And it turns out some surprising figures in global health are cautiously optimistic about it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re basically making a bet that they can do it and get away with it, and if things go wrong, they\u2019ll get a bit of a pass,\u201d Rachel Bonnifield, director of the global health policy program at the Center for Global Development, said of the administration.\u00a0\u201cAnd that\u2019s probably true, and it very well might be a good thing\u201d for global health in the long run.<\/p>\n
It comes at a critical juncture for global health and American foreign aid more broadly. \u201cWe all have to work hard to ensure that these disruptive moments are moments of real progress,\u201d said Jirair Ratevosian, a senior adviser for health equity policy under the Biden administration and now a senior scholar at the Duke Global Health Institute. If all goes well, the strategy could \u201cbe a huge success for this administration,\u201d he said, \u201csomething that I think, decades from now, public health will credit this administration for.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
It\u2019s worth noting, however, that this MAGA-fied global health strategy has also doubled as just another way for this administration to get other countries to do what they want. For example, watchdog groups have raised serious concerns about the terms of the new deals, which require African countries to share sensitive health data and even precious minerals with the United States just to keep their clinics open. Many people won\u2019t get their HIV meds at all this year simply because Trump takes issue with the governments they live under. And the administration\u2019s rushed timeline \u2014 which included shutting off existing aid flows overnight, instead of transitioning over time \u2014 has led to deadly lapses in services in the countries that can least afford it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
What\u2019s clear is that this administration has enacted the most sweeping reform to global health in a generation. But so far, they\u2019ve opted to do so in the worst way possible. The question for those that inherit this new structure is whether something good can come from it: Will this change herald a new norm of more effective giving that advocates have dreamed about for decades \u2014 or will global aid fully transform into another cudgel that this White House and the next ones brandish to pressure poorer nations into doing their bidding?\u00a0<\/p>\n
The USAID system was imperfect \u2014 even if its work was crucial<\/p>\n
Margaret Odera is a community health worker in Kenya. In 2006, she was diagnosed with HIV and nearly died of the virus before a local health worker, funded by USAID, convinced her to seek free anti-retroviral therapies through PEPFAR.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cMy life was saved through USAID,\u201d Odera, who also credits the agency with helping her find her own calling as a health worker, told me. Despite that, she often felt that there was something amiss about how it distributed its resources.<\/p>\n
\u201cMost of the money, maybe 70 percent of it, was going directly into people\u2019s pockets,\u201d she said with a sigh, instead of \u201ccoming to the ground for community members.\u201d She\u2019s referring here to the notion that foreign (often North American or European) nonprofits gobbled up most of USAID\u2019s budget, while local health workers on the ground like herself received minimal support.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It is true that almost all of the big USAID contracts went to a small group of large organizations, many of them American NGOs. As of 2024, just over 10 percent of USAID grants and contracts went to local groups in recipient countries, a statistic that Elon Musk later called out to smear the agency as fundamentally wasteful.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Despite the Trump administration\u2019s admonitions, there is no evidence of widespread waste, fraud, or abuse at organizations funded by USAID. In fact, their work saved millions of lives each year.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Still, the US might have been able to save even more lives if local groups and governments played a more central role in distributing aid. The research group the Share Trust found that channeling funding through local groups is 32 percent more cost-effective than funding higher-salaried Western NGOs.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t think it\u2019s as inefficient as they say it is, but it\u2019s undeniable that there is overhead incurred in the United States,\u201d Bonnifield said. Between the higher prices of foreign salaries and the expense of transporting workers to and from the countries in which they\u2019re working, the costs simply \u201cadd up and get expensive.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
And that means less money for Odera and other local health workers, who in Kenya, are paid a meager government stipend worth about $35 per month \u2014 less than the country\u2019s minimum wage. There are roughly 3 million community health workers globally \u2014 who often serve as a critical, and sometimes only, line of medical contact, especially for people in poorer countries. And the vast majority of these workers do not receive any salary at all.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Before Trump, USAID-funded NGOs did employ and pay a massive number of local health workers. But this model also led to a kind of parallel health care system, Bonnifield said, where NGOs \u2014 with their big budgets and better salaries \u2014 would inadvertently \u201cpoach from the public sector.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The result was a bifurcated health sector. While USAID was very effective at combatting specific diseases like HIV or malaria, these programs were effectively siloed from countries\u2019 broader primary health care systems, which often went underfunded. Many people knew where to get their HIV meds, but struggled to find a primary care doctor.<\/p>\n
\u201cPeople want to go to a health care center, and they want to get all of their support in one stop,\u201d Ratevosian said. \u201cThey want to get tested for HIV, they want to pick up their malaria medications, they want to get checked for high blood pressure, just like anyone else wants to in any other country in the world.\u201d<\/p>\n
The art of the global health deal<\/p>\n
But even though USAID was never perfect, its wholesale destruction instantly put millions of people\u2019s lives at risk, thrusting local health workers into a panic around the world.<\/p>\n
Odera remembers the chaotic day the agency laid off its health staff \u2014 including a clinic providing HIV care and anti-retroviral therapies \u2014 in Mathare, one of Kenya\u2019s largest slums.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI feared for my life,\u201d said Odera, who still relied on USAID to keep her own HIV in check. \u201cI was asking myself, \u2018What will happen five years from now, if I\u2019m not taking drugs? I still have small kids, who I\u2019m educating, and if I die now, what will happen to my children?\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Hundreds of thousands of people around the world did die in the immediate aftermath, from hunger or preventable diseases, unable to access previously USAID-funded resources.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In the following months, however, elements of USAID\u2019s work experienced a groggy rebirth, culminating in September with the release of a new \u201cAmerica First\u201d global health plan, parts of which read oddly familiar to progressive reformists who favor localization.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Suddenly, it seemed, the Trump administration was ready to make a deal: As part of an untested new strategy, the US would enter into \u201cmultiyear bilateral agreements\u201d directly with recipient countries, offering up to billions of dollars of support in exchange for the promise to progressively increase their own domestic health spending to varying degrees. Kenya\u2019s was the first to be negotiated in December, followed by Uganda, Sierra Leone, Ethiopia, and others soon after. As of March, the US had negotiated bilateral deals with 27 countries across Africa and Central America.
\nView Link
\nAt first glance, \u201cof course we were excited,\u201d said Peter Waiswa, a Ugandan health systems researcher and associate professor at the Makerere University School of Public Health. Not only was US global health aid on the rise but for the first time, local authorities would take center stage.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom a systems perspective, there\u2019s no alternative to government in terms of doing a public good,\u201d Waiswa said. \u201cAnd so that was exciting that maybe at last, the [Ugandan] government will have a little bit more to be able to deliver.\u201d<\/p>\n
But this is the Trump White House\u2019s global health strategy after all, and the State Department has made no secret of advancing its own interests in shaping bilateral deals.<\/p>\n
For one thing, the White House expects recipient countries to share health data and biological specimens with the US government. This is ostensibly put forth as a means of quickly identifying and quashing disease outbreaks as they arise, which might sound like a benign addendum \u2014 it is generally good when countries share health data with one another. But advocates have raised alarms over whether the data-sharing terms will abide by local privacy laws, and, moreover, whether African nations will actually benefit from any health innovations gleaned from the data, such as when African countries struggled to access Ebola treatments developed from their own citizens\u2019 health data.<\/p>\n
Allan Maleche, executive director of the Kenya Legal & Ethical Issues Network on HIV and AIDS, said that the biggest concern is about who controls that data, and eventually profits off of it: \u201cWhat are the consent and limitations safeguards when you share data across borders?\u201d<\/p>\n
In December, dozens of organizations signed a letter addressed to African heads of state raising objections to the data sharing requirement. Kenya\u2019s health deal with the US is currently on hold until a data privacy lawsuit proceeds through that country\u2019s court system. And Zimbabwe ended talks with the US about health aid in February over similar concerns.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Another emerging risk is that the agreements could come with increasingly strict geopolitical strings attached. In Zambia, the US State Department has refused to sign over lifesaving aid unless the country agrees to fork over its vast mineral reserves to American businesses.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is effectively not really a health strategy, but a security and economic strategy,\u201d Mihir Mankad, director of advocacy and global health policy at Doctors Without Borders, told me. Other countries on the president\u2019s bad side, such as South Africa, have been excluded from the negotiations altogether, severely disrupting their responses to public health crises.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey pick winners and losers every single day,\u201d Ratevosian said. \u201cThey punish people who don\u2019t subscribe to their beliefs, and that is carried over to foreign assistance \u2014 and that\u2019s a recipe for danger.\u201d<\/p>\n
The risky, radical future of foreign aid<\/p>\n
Odera, the community health worker, is choosing to not care about those concerns right now, because for the first time in a long time, she feels optimistic. She\u2019s frustrated that Kenya\u2019s agreement with the US has gotten caught up in the courts.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cAnything that improves the health security of our country is good for me,\u201d Odera said, who is convinced that soon enough, with money going into the Kenyan government\u2019s hands, the benefits will trickle down to local health workers like herself. All she\u2019s asking for is a minimum wage, which in Kenya, is about $120 per month.<\/p>\n
It will take months, maybe years, to see if that materializes. And as hopeful as Odera is, even she worries there\u2019s a risk that, without proper oversight, the money could easily be lost to mismanagement. For what it\u2019s worth, studies on the effects of bilateral aid on corruption have had mixed results, with some researchers finding little association between the two, and others finding a significant risk, especially when aid doesn\u2019t come with anti-corruption requirements. Under the previous USAID model, despite the Trump administration\u2019s claims, evidence shows that corruption was rare. Well-resourced NGOs tend to have established systems for keeping their accounting in order, for example, even in very fragile contexts like Afghanistan, where audits by USAID found that only about 0.4 percent of funds ever strayed from their intended purposes. The Trump administration fired the USAID watchdog charged with monitoring corruption back in February of last year.\u00a0<\/p>\n
And every global health expert I spoke with for this story agreed that in the long run, moving more money into local hands is a good thing. US presidents have been trying and mostly failing to do so for years. But nobody has ever dared to do it so quickly \u2014 and for good reason.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Yes, the NGO industrial complex was flawed. But it also played a crucial role in making HIV a much less deadly disease around the world and helped make it the safest time in history to be a child. It often found ways to protect those who face discrimination or live on the margins, including women and LGBTQ people, even when their governments chose not to. And we very well may miss it when it\u2019s gone.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIf there is an advantage to the abruptness [of the Trump administration\u2019s changes], it\u2019s that people have to take it seriously immediately,\u201d said Mankad of Doctors Without Borders. \u201cBut if there\u2019s a disadvantage, it\u2019s that the bottom could fall out right away.\u201d<\/p>\n
In a perfect world, there would be no need for NGOs. There would be no need for foreign aid. Odera and other local health workers like her would earn the salaries they deserve without having to rely on often capricious aid flowing from the powers that be in Washington, DC.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
But we don\u2019t live in that world. And so far, it\u2019s entirely unclear whether the Trump administration\u2019s blustery, bullying approach will even come close to ushering in the vision of a world without a need for foreign aid, one in which people like Odera can thrive. But for many people in the poorest nations, the road ahead could be deadly \u2014 or at least very rough. For many of these countries, the co-investment that Trump\u2019s deals require may be far too expensive to sustain, and the logistics too complicated to organize overnight.<\/p>\n
Even so, this structural shift is probably permanent. Future US administrations may eventually bring more NGOs back into the fold to backstop local governments and help ensure the continuation of care for those who need it \u2014 but the era of largely bypassing recipient governments is rightfully, incontrovertibly coming to an end.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIt aligns with where the momentum is elsewhere in global health, and what the demands of African countries have been for some time,\u201d Bonnifield said. \u201cIt will be hard to come back from this.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Trump administration has negotiated dozens of bilateral health deals with African governments, which will receive billions of dollars that … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[31],"class_list":["post-23355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-politics"],"yoast_head":"\n