Beyond the Cuts: How the Defunding Affects Feminist and Civil Society Organizations

The rise of the far-right movement and recent shifts in global politics have led to a significant reduction in international funding for civil society organizations. Under the Trump administration, crucial US foreign aid programs have been defunded, affecting areas such as economic development, humanitarian assistance, peace and security, health services, education, environment, and democracy. Other countries like the Netherlands, France, and the UK have also made cuts to development aid to focus on projects that benefit their national security interests.

In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order that froze US foreign development assistance for 90 days. This executive order affected, among others, USAID employees of which 4,200 were placed on administrative leave, while 1,600 were laid off in the US. Outside of the US, the effects were even more visible; around 20,000 community health workers providing HIV services in Mozambique and 15,000 in South Africa have received stop work orders. Similar cases are noted worldwide with thousands of contracts terminated due to foreign aid cuts. 

The Dutch government also announced substantial cuts to its development aid budget, with a reduction of one billion Euros for the period from 2026 to 2030. The new budget will range from 390 million Euros to 565 million Euros and focus on areas such as health, trade, and human rights. Belgium cut foreign aid by 25 percent and France reduced it by 37 percent. The UK cut foreign aid by 40 percent while raising the defense budget, which Prime Minister Keir Starmer described as an “extremely difficult and painful” decision, but necessary due to “America’s wavering commitment to European security”.

General Impact of Defunding Civil Society Organizations

This wave of international foreign aid cuts resulted in immediate repercussions on civil society organizations and it will continue to affect the most vulnerable communities worldwide, in particular in the Global South. According to the Center for Global Development, “eight low-income countries and eight lower-middle income countries face losing over a fifth of the total foreign assistance they receive” - South Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Uganda, and Ethiopia.

In regions with fragile democracies and shrinking civic spaces, foreign aid is often the primary financial source for programs that address crucial issues not found on local governments’ agendas, such as democracy-building, human security, health services, refugee services, women’s rights and empowerment, and LGBTIQ+ rights. 

The foreign aid disbursements in the US for 2024 were 41 billion US dollar to 206 countries and 13,000 activities. In this, USAID was responsible for 32.48 billion US dollar in disbursements. With the freeze of foreign aid, around 1.5 billion US dollar was not released for work completed on behalf of USAID in 2024. Emergency response in cases of war, HIV/AIDS, and gender-based violence prevention is funded mostly by USAID. As a result, the freeze of foreign aid will have, first and foremost, an impact in places such as Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Syria, and Palestine where wars, armed conflicts, and humanitarian crises are present, and in African countries where, among others, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment aid is of crucial significance.

According to a global survey among NGOs by the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, 67 percent of the respondents received stop work orders. As a result, the “US government owes NGOs millions in reimbursements, so NGOs have limited or no liquidity”. 80 percent of survey respondents with US funding reported immediate impacts on their partners, “including having to immediately end partnership agreements”. According to Global Aid Freeze, only 8.8 percent of their 816 survey respondents have found alternative resources.

The Setback for Women's and LGBTIQ+ Rights

In the Western Balkans and Türkiye, 73 percent of organizations that work on LGBTIQ+ reported a reduction in program activities. Of these NGOs, 60 percent experienced the closure of specific projects, which is “a clear indication that critical work has halted”. Employee layoffs or contract terminations occurred in 40 percent of cases, while 40 percent reported an increased workload on remaining employees. In addition, 33 percent of organizations are unable to pay office rent and utilities. Prior to the cuts, 40 percent of organizations received direct funding from USAID, 27 percent from US foundations, the State Department, and similar donors, and 33 percent from Europe, from where additional cuts are also expected. Nevertheless, for some organizations, the sources from the US accounted for 76 to 100 percent of their total budget.

According to the Dalan Fund, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, organizations reported 30 to 80 percent budget cuts with organizations having to shut down or look for other sources of funding, which are now scarce and often unreachable due to the “new wave of anti-gender and anti-human rights narratives”.

If the freeze continues over the expected 90 days, an estimate of 11.7 million women and girls will lose access to essential sexual and reproductive health services, which will result in 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and 8,340 maternal deaths. In addition, programs that provide protection from gender-based violence will be affected. These services are crucial for countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, and Yemen. In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that around 5,200 of 6,200 global aid programs by USAID would be terminated, while the rest would be taken over by the State Department. With this, the aforementioned predictions could become a reality.

All of these cuts raise the question whether the decades-long fight for equality will face major setbacks once the efforts to change laws, defend human rights, and support the most vulnerable groups of people are undermined. In the context of women and LGBTIQ+ rights, the funding cuts will not merely affect support programs, capacity building, and health services, but also entrepreneurship, environment, and food programs. Under these circumstances, women and girls will be on the receiving end of all changes with expected additional care work.

Navigating the Challenges of Defunding

A significant side effect of the funding cuts is that the populist and anti-rights rhetoric has gained momentum, using the current circumstances as evidence that the work of civil society is unnecessary and illegitimate. Authoritarian governments are using the funding cuts to “bolster their hold on power”, making it easier for populist politicians to target civil society and, in particular, organizations that deal with women’s and LGBTIQ+ rights and democratization. Without substantial international financial support, the work of underfunded civil society organizations will be weakened and/or eliminated, consequently damaging the opposition to the dominant anti-rights rhetoric.

The defunding of feminist and civil society organizations represents a significant setback in global efforts to advance gender equality and women’s and LGBTIQ+ rights. These cuts are not just financial in nature; they have deep social, health, and political consequences, particularly for vulnerable communities. With the gap the US aid freeze created, and with the unwillingness of other Global North countries to step up, the situation will become a fertile ground for authoritarian regimes such as China and Russia to expand their influence. Consequently, the current situation calls for consistent international cooperation to ensure that progress made over the past decades is not lost. The strategies include philanthropies and foundations stepping up in long-term funding of local organizations and movements, with a focus on decolonial funding mechanisms that place at their center the needs of the affected communities rather than current governments’ foreign policy priorities. 

The authors of the article are aware that this is an ongoing conversation, and while they have given their utmost to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the statistics and legal frameworks change daily and might not be reflected in the article at a later point.