This is Inklings, where we explore how aid works in the wilds of humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the dark corners of online punditry.
It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: Who’s the bridge to Trump and Musk, what’s the big-picture strategy, and what to read into UK aid cuts.
On the radar|
Who fills the gap? That has been a persistent question throughout the turmoil of Trump 2.0. The latest aid cut news offers a clear answer: “Not us”. The United Kingdom says it will divert from its already dwindling aid budget to spend on military and defence – a stark and deliberate either/or (more on that below).
For the last month, humanitarian leaders have made the rounds at government ministries and missions and left with mostly kind words and largely empty hands. Some officials say they can be more flexible with funding – so that aid groups can shift what they’ve already been given, for example – but stop short of promising more money. Publicly, Norway has announced funding for Norwegian organisations, and Sweden has left a door open but made no promises. If new funding is forthcoming, some aid officials expect it to be limited, earmarked, and concentrated on domestic aid groups.
-
Local aid: Local aid groups have few direct lines to government donors. Some say international NGO intermediaries have moved money around to help in select cases, but that’s relatively rare, as we reported. Slightly more common is help from philanthropic organisations, whose funding has quietly helped some local groups to grow, plan for the future, and ween themselves off the international aid drip (over several years). It’s worth repeating that one of the few bridging options right now is not a government, but a fund run by NEAR, the network of Global South civil society groups.
-
What about “new donors”: Humanitarians have turned up in force this week in Riyadh, where Saudi Arabia hosted a forum with the requisite amount of stage lighting. Saudi Arabia “reaffirmed” a previously announced pledge of $500 million for polio. The ubiquitous IOM was around for a press release or three as well. Saudi Arabia comes up frequently as a “new donor”, but it has been a significant (if inconsistent) funder for years.
Those UK aid cuts: What to read into how the UK announced its aid cuts? Explicitly linking a boost in military spending to a drop in aid is a choice. There are other ways to balance the books, and better ways to cushion the news. Instead, it feels like part of a deliberate and targeted narrative. The audience isn’t the phalanx of charities and aid professionals warning of the obvious harms (notably, much more swiftly than they did for Trump’s moves). At least in part, it includes Trump himself, and a broader public already drawn to Trump-adjacent narratives of fragility and nativist self-interest. It’s a similar audience that the right-wing government in the Netherlands is speaking to with its “Dutch interests first” foreign policy. It’s part of the same dynamic that’s shaping spending from Germany to Belgium and France. Even if governments aren’t explicitly Trumpist, they still answer to parts of electorates that are. Humanitarians lack a clear narrative that speaks to that same audience. Asking which governments will step up is the wrong question. The UK aid cuts point to a more fundamental one: Can humanitarians change the system so that it’s not reliant on governments at all?
Acronymage|
PACJA: The Pan African Climate Justice Alliance offers this clear message: “The right-wing-led, nationalistic, and self-serving inclination sweeping across developed countries should be seen as an opportunity for Africa to rediscover itself, foster honest and mutual partnerships and take the lead in repositioning its sustainable development agenda.” The statement’s preamble also employs a spectacular collection of adjectives.
VOICE: The network of European NGOs says EU leaders must “take a stand” on US aid cuts by increasing funding. The UK cuts were announced shortly after.
GISF: The Global Interagency Security Forum is hosting a conference on humanitarian security. Amid record aid worker killings, the US aid freeze will likely put more humanitarians in danger, analysts say.
End note|
So, what did you do last week: It has been more than a month since the Trump machinery dropped chaos onto an unprepared aid system. In the ensuing weeks, humanitarian leaders have been busy comparing notes, sharpening strategies, and readying themselves to reframe the Trump and Musk deluge with a clear narrative – while selflessly sharing resources so that people who depend on aid aren’t left out to dry, and planning to revamp humanitarianism so that it’s not so easily punctured by donor whims.
Right?
Perhaps versions of the above are happening in different corners. But weeks into Trump 2.0, it’s hard not to be left with a bigger-picture question: What’s the gameplan?
UN relief chief Tom Fletcher has spoken of the need for “quiet, sober engagement”. Trying to out-yell Donald Trump only gets you a sore throat, after all. Those with access speak of “interlocutors” – Democrat and Republican representatives in the US Congress – to argue the case for humanitarianism behind closed doors.
Addressing staff at a town hall in early February, UNHCR boss Filippo Grandi spoke of plans to make the case for the agency’s work in Washington – “as soon as we can obtain the right meetings and interlocutors”.
Similarly, NGOs with access are targeting sympathetic members of Congress and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has previously taken a spin as a somewhat pro-aid senator.
The International Rescue Committee, for example, told staff that it’s aiming to “mount a clear defence of foreign assistance”, according to an internal message shared after a February all-staff meeting. “The main objectives of our advocacy are: addressing current liquidity issues linked to payments for work conducted and agreed waivers not being made, influencing the foreign aid review, and defending foreign assistance spending ahead of budget negotiations – while promoting IRC as a trusted partner,” it added.
This strategy, however, suggests a degree of faith in the inner workings of the US political system – and a belief that the systems and structures that elected Trump (twice) will also produce an antidote.
A few questions: We can safely assume that agencies will be strong advocates for their mandates and for themselves, but who’s presenting the case for locally led aid, and others who don’t have a seat at the table?
If politicians are interlocutors for Trump, who’s the bridge to Elon Musk and other unelected tech oligarchs who hold outsized power?
And, yes, what’s the humanitarian narrative that reframes the story for a broader public?
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]
