On September 9, Indigenous Network joined a news briefing hosted by American Community Media with Dr. Abhijit Banerjee, whose work on measuring the impact of aid won the Nobel Prize in 2019, in a conversation that focused squarely on USAID’s contraction and what that means for people who depend on well-run delivery systems. The session was moderated by Kiran Malhotra, a former faculty member in dietetics and nutrition at the University of Delhi who now serves as a trustee of the University of California, Santa Cruz Foundation and as a board member of the Public Health Foundation of India, and who is also a consistent supporter of contemporary visual and performing arts.
Malhotra opened by setting out some deep concerns, and she noted that “we have seen a total repositioning of U.S. contributions to global aid,” and adding that “allied countries are reducing aid as they expand defense budgets.” We have seen it in the news, and the scent of concern is everywhere. However, instead of going into panic mode, Dr. Banerjee actually grounded the discussion in evidence from the two decades before the pandemic, reminding reporters that “the twenty years leading up to 2019 were excellent years for the poorest people in the world,” that “extreme poverty went down very substantially,” and that “in many countries girls are now ahead of boys in school participation,” which matters because cuts now threaten gains that took years to build. So overall, it is important to know the history and take a wider look at the time we are in.
The briefing turned directly to USAID’s structure and recent changes, with Dr. Banerjee separating fact and hype. He argued that the common claim of rampant fraud has potentioally been blown out, stating “I have seen no evidence of it." Instead, he pointed to parts of USAID that, in his view, had delivered real value before being shut down, highlighting Development Innovation Ventures, which funded promising ideas in stages so that only approaches proven to work were expanded, and noting that this program and the USAID research department, which he described as a strong team providing evidence for policy, have now both been closed. This is quite concerning.
Malhotra questioned what the loss of those capabilities means outside Washington. What about first-order impacts like clinics, food programs, and frontline NGOs? Dr. Banerjee described a widening danger in humanitarian crisis zones such as Syria, South Sudan, Sudan, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where food aid has already been reduced and where local organizations are closing as funding dries up, warning, “lives will be lost if delivery systems collapse.” What is the cost of the life? Apparently, USAID has budgeted for only some.
Dr. Banerjee linked the crisis-zone risks to two programs that have long relied on U.S. funding. He explained that PEPFAR supports HIV treatment across low income countries and that Gavi provides financing for vaccination worldwide. He warned that losing either one could wipe out decades of public health progress in far less time than it took to achieve it.
Questions moved to replacement strategies, and we hear something very interesting: could donors or private capital realistically fill the gap left by the United States? Dr. Banerjee said the problem was not that the money does not exist but that there is little political will to mobilize it. Interesting... He gave a concrete example, pointing out that one percent of the wealth held by the top three thousand people in the world could replace much of the funding that has been cut. He stressed that this shows the gap could be filled, but it would require coordination and commitment that so far have not appeared.
Reporters also asked how USAID had handled people who fall between national systems, such as refugees and cross-border communities, and Dr. Banerjee responded that USAID had in fact been a major player in places like the eastern DRC and its neighbors, supporting programs that worked where lines on a map do not match the movement of families, although he was candid that delivery quality varies and is now weakening as organizations close.
He returned to the role of media at the end, urging balance with the reminder that “children are living longer and schools have stayed open,” and asking journalists to “report the successes as well as the failures” so the public sees that aid can work when it is designed and measured well.
For Indigenous communities, the relevance is immediate, because as aid lesses for any community, it weakens the runway for us all. Programs lose staff and continuity, small organizations that braid multiple grants run out of cash flow, and trust networks that carry care from month to month begin to desintagrate.
What would our ancestors say when they see this?
The practical takeaways are to protect frontline capacity before it unravels, and to keep simple and credible outcome records that can survive the cuts. We must continue to diversify revenue so no single cut can end a program, (yikes) and to share what works so other communities can copy a working map rather than start from zero. So we may urge you to keep supporting local journalism, local grassroots orgs, and your community members. Even the ones who have been around for a long time, because you never know who is struggling.
