This is another edition of Inklings, where we explore all things aid and aid-adjacent unfolding in humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the dark corners of online aid punditry.
It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: Conspicuous localisation rebrands, Dutch budget cuts, and four more thoughts on Trump aid ripples.
On the radar|
Trumplings: What will it mean for Donald Trump to again helm the world’s largest aid donor government? We had some initial thoughts on the crisis response ripples in this post-election article. Here are a few more tidbits (and questions):
-
Volatility: It’s a given that a government led by Trump will use aid money and cuts as a bludgeon along ideological and political lines. Governments already do this and most humanitarians accept the cash; Trump 2.0 will simply be more overt. But who will face the most pressure in the international aid system? Trump’s volatility is the key factor. The starting points are obvious: reproductive healthcare, given the certainty of a return to the so-called “global gag rule”; aid organisations that are too dependent on the US, given the threat of expanding the rule to cover more kinds of funding including humanitarian aid; the UN system, given Trump’s past ire and likely appointees. The World Health Organization was a high-profile target the first time around. But that was also at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, where a disastrous US response led to disproportionate deaths in the US, and likely hurt Trump at the polls, researchers say. At the same time, an agency like the World Food Programme – with Trump-approved David Beasley at its helm – emerged relatively unscathed. This time around, Trump is at a political high and has less to gain by attacking the WHO – even if there’s still plenty of disinformation in the US around the agency and negotiations for a pandemic accord. The WFP, meanwhile, is now led by Cindy McCain – who endorsed Joe Biden for US president in 2020 (before her WFP appointment in 2023), and was previously the target of Trump attacks along with her late husband, John McCain. Food is normally less contentious in the US than other aid sectors, and donor governments like to use food aid itself – highly branded, highly emotive – to show off their generosity. Can it withstand Trump’s whims?
-
Local aid as common ground: The right-wing wishlist for a Trump presidency known as Project 2025 is peppered with references to localisation and local aid. Its vision for US government aid funding would redistribute resources away from Big Aid, towards local responders and faith-based groups in particular. There’s some common ground when it comes to localisation. Senator Marco Rubio appears to be Trump’s choice for secretary of state. In 2021, Rubio introduced a bipartisan bill meant to open up more USAID funding to local aid. Localisation policies are already on the books at USAID and other donor organisations (swift progress is another matter). And Project 2025’s local push is fuelled by a distrust of the global aid system, not the principles of equity and decolonisation that drive the local aid movement today. But after years of marginal progress, what would it mean if it takes a new Trump presidency to inadvertently nudge the humanitarian sector forward on its long-stalled localisation promises?
-
Policy and turnover: Analysts, journalists, and people in the aid system have often turned to Project 2025 as a “best guess” for what’s in store. But Trump has distanced himself from the manifesto, which was published by the right-wing Heritage Foundation think tank (its aid bits are penned by Max Primorac, a former USAID official). Expecting coherent and consistent policy for international aid may be a tough ask from Trump 2.0. His trademark unpredictability is again the key. Trump’s first administration saw high turnover, from advisers to his cabinet. Those who have Trump’s ear today may well get a chance to set policy. But will they have enough time to see it through?
-
America is not the world: Yes, a new Trump presidency has major repercussions for aid and multilateralism. Just look at the concern surrounding the COP29 climate summit happening now in Azerbaijan. But Trump is not the only world leader whose decisions matter, despite what media coverage may imply. “Some 30 African leaders are going to be in Baku,” Mohamed Adow, head of the Power Shift Africa advocacy group, said in a post on social media. “These are the real climate leaders, [and] they must now work together to accelerate momentum on climate action, with or without the US.” And as COP29 progresses, countries including Barbados, France, and Kenya are moving forward with plans for a global solidarity levy that might just make climate action a little less dependent on fickle budgets from volatile governments like the US.
The GHO’s conspicuous local rebrand: What will aid cost in 2025? The UN’s humanitarian aid coordination arm, OCHA, is set to launch its tally of UN-backed response plans on 4 December. This year, the so-called Global Humanitarian Overview has some conspicuously local messaging. The theme is “strengthening global solidarity and empowering local communities”. One of the three launch events (held on the same day in Nairobi, Kuwait City, and Geneva) is titled “investing in localisation for the transformation of humanitarian response”. If future USAID policy does veer further towards local aid, then the international humanitarian system appears to be readying a reply. Of course, this is just one portrait of how Big Aid views its embrace of locally led aid. Other actions offer a fuller picture: UN events covering localisation with zero speakers from local NGOs, or fudging the numbers on local funding, or years of unaccountability for unmet reform promises, for example. All this leads to accusations that the system is merely flying the flag of locally led aid when it’s convenient – more on that below.
Netherlands aid cuts: Aid finance is “grim” and getting gloomier. The Netherlands will cut its aid budget by €1 billion over a five-year period starting in 2026, leaving around €400 million, the government said on 11 November, fleshing out previously announced cuts. The cuts come with other restrictions that have aid observers warning of repercussions. Dutch funding won’t go towards “lobbying”, which is likely to be interpreted as standard advocacy efforts. Also, the Dutch government says that all grantees must have at least 50% “own income”, which could shut the door to many non-profits, especially small organisations. The Dutch government was elected this year as part of a right-wing shift in some countries.
Acronymage|
ODI: The think tank formerly known as the Overseas Development Institute has a new name and a fresh logo. The slightly revised moniker, ODI Global, “reflects our conviction that global challenges will not be solved through a narrow focus on development and humanitarian action”, plus a “commitment to decolonisation”, an announcement states.
KFC: Did you know that the international offerings of Kentucky Fried Chicken, the US fast food giant, are part of a division called KFC Global?
X: ODI, btw, says it will no longer use the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, citing “a substantial rise in hate speech, mis- and disinformation”. The Guardian newspaper also says it will also exorcise X, calling it “a toxic media platform”.
Data points|
Colleague Will Worley is in Baku for COP29 (read his pop-up, scene-setting newsletter here). Here are a few key numbers:
2.6%: Global emissions will see only 2.6% cuts in 2030 compared to 2019 levels, according to UN tallies. Experts say cuts of 42% are necessary.
20%: Eight members of the so-called Vulnerable 20 bloc spent more than one fifth of their tax revenue servicing external debt.
$700 million: This is the amount pledged to the new loss and damage fund as of late September.
$28 billion: The amount of adaptation funding going to developing countries in 2022, according to the UN Environment Programme. It’s short by at least $187 billion a year.
$1 trillion: This is how much new climate finance will be needed each year, some experts say.
3.1 degrees Celsius: This is how much temperatures will rise given current efforts, the UN says. It’s far beyond the 1.5-degree threshold climate scientists say is necessary to limit the worst impacts of global heating.
End quote|
“The term ‘localisation’ is increasingly used as a populist slogan to attract donor funding, often bypassing local organisations entirely.”
In 2022, Ukrainian civil society groups penned an open letter to international donors and the aid system titled “If not now, when?” It critiqued the humanitarian sector’s interpretation of neutrality, called out of international NGO capacity building as “nonsense”, and urged the system to shift power and funding.
There has been little change in the last two years, these groups say. Now they’re back with another open letter:
“The greatest obstacle remains a lack of transparency,” the organisations write. “We cannot determine how much funding is truly localised because the UN and most INGOs do not see reporting to the Ukrainian public as a necessity. This lack of accountability fosters distrust and prevents monitoring of progress. Meanwhile, the term ‘localisation’ is increasingly used as a populist slogan to attract donor funding, often bypassing local organisations entirely.”
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]
