*]:!text-medium" readability="61"> Editor's note:
Over the past month, the Trump administration has enacted sweeping orders to overhaul U.S. foreign aid, freezing billions in assistance and restructuring America’s global engagement. The policy shift has sent shockwaves through development organizations, humanitarian efforts, and diplomatic circles—raising critical questions about U.S. leadership, strategic alliances, and the long-term consequences of withdrawing aid.
In this interview, CSD Senior Fellow George Ingram, a longtime expert on foreign assistance, unpacks the stakes. He examines the economic and geopolitical consequences, the U.S. domestic political landscape, and the role of media narratives in shaping public perception of these changes.
He also shares his approach to affecting policy, grounded in facts, coalitions, and unexpected allies. This conversation took place on February 28, 2025. Since then, on March 5, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the administration’s attempt to withhold payments to foreign aid organizations for work already performed—a development that underscores the uncertainty surrounding U.S. foreign aid policy today.
The consensus was clear: Trust in the United States has been destroyed. Trust is not something that is built up quickly—it can be lost overnight, but it takes generations to rebuild.
George Ingram
The state of US foreign aid
Junjie Ren: Let’s start with the state of U.S. foreign aid. You’ve closely followed the evolution of U.S. foreign assistance for decades. From your point of view, what’s the extent of the impact from halting foreign aid?
George Ingram: The impact is felt in the United States and globally, at the individual level, institutional level, and at the U.S. strategic level.
If you look at the U.S. first, the withholding of payments to U.S. companies and civil society organizations is putting their financial viability in danger. If this isn’t turned around, hundreds of U.S. organizations will be in deep financial strain or face operational collapse. Along with that, tens of thousands of Americans have already been put on administrative leave or lost their jobs. There are hundreds, even thousands, of farmers in the Midwest who have lost the market of U.S. food assistance, which helps feed people in developing countries who are in danger of hunger and famine. The impact is not just in Washington but across the country. This is affecting people who implement foreign assistance, as well as those who provide supplies—food, grains, healthcare products. The ripple effects extend throughout U.S. society and the economy.
Globally, the consequences are even more severe. While thousands of Americans are losing jobs, there are even more in developing countries who help implement USAID projects, and millions who benefit from them. People will lose access to HIV drugs, literally endangering their lives. Refugees in camps, communities affected by extreme weather, and those already on the brink of famine are now in an even more precarious position. Take Gaza, for example. The U.S. provides several hundred million dollars in humanitarian assistance there. Where is that aid going to come from now? Who will implement it? What will the impact be on the ceasefire? There are camps in Syria where U.S. funding was providing security measures to contain terrorists. That security ribbon is no longer there because the personnel have been furloughed.
In sum, the ramifications extend to human lives, livelihoods, and institutions worldwide.
I was on a call this morning orchestrated by a German think tank with voices from around the world. The consensus was clear: Trust in the United States has been destroyed. Trust is not something that is built up quickly—it can be lost overnight, but it takes generations to rebuild. Right now, the U.S. is no longer trusted as a reliable ally in many parts of the world.
The immediate damage includes the U.S. leaving the playing field open for China and Russia.
George Ingram
Junjie Ren: On that note, what are the setbacks that might heal over time, and what are the harder, more permanent setbacks we need to reckon with?
George Ingram: It’s hard to say how the damage can be repaired. If it even can be, it’s going to take at least a generation. This will remain uppermost in people’s minds when they think about the U.S. until a new generation of leaders comes into power in governments and civil society organizations. It’s also going to take several administrations consistently demonstrating that they care about the world, care about other people, and want to be collaborative partners.
The immediate damage includes the U.S. leaving the playing field open for China and Russia. Countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa will ask, “Who can we depend on now?” If the U.S. cuts off assistance while China continues to provide it, these countries may shift their allegiance accordingly. We may see them voting more with China and Russia in the U.N. or allowing them to build military bases in their countries. The ramifications for the U.S. strategic position in the world—and for our own security—are significant.
This doesn’t just impact Americans in Washington or New York—it affects Americans in rural communities, farmers, and workers across the country.
George Ingram
The cost of aid freeze
Junjie Ren: It’s easy to treat aid as a line item in a budget debate, but you’ve frequently emphasized the human toll—lives lost, futures disrupted—when assistance is frozen or cut. Can you talk about how this impacts stakeholders who often lack a voice in decisionmaking? More importantly, how is America’s own future tied to that of the global community? Why is this interconnectedness crucial for people here to understand?
George Ingram: It’s crucial for people to understand that, like it or not, we live in an interconnected world. International trade and investment fuel the U.S. economy. U.S. farmers produce more food—basic grains and commodities—than we can consume domestically. They rely on markets abroad. Our food aid programs help feed the poor and help create economic stability that benefits U.S. interests.
When you pull back on assistance that helps developing countries strengthen their economies, you hurt U.S. markets. Better economies abroad create better markets for U.S. goods and services. This doesn’t just impact Americans in Washington or New York—it affects Americans in rural communities, farmers, and workers across the country.
This impact extends particularly to the health sector. USAID and U.S. aid programs finance the purchase and delivery of health products worldwide. Cutting aid directly affects jobs and salaries for people in companies that produce these goods. It also affects those at the ground level in developing countries— people delivering assistance and those receiving it.
The people impacted in developing countries don’t have a voice in policymaking. That voice is frequently articulated through civil society organizations. USAID, with 22% of its assistance going through civil society organizations in 2022, is one of the largest supporters of civil society organizations in developing countries. These local civil society organizations amplify the voices of the silent majority, who might otherwise have no way to express their views and needs.
There’s nobody home in the U.S. aid system right now who truly understands how to do locally led development. Many of these people are being forced to seek new jobs outside the sector.
George Ingram
Implications for locally led development
Junjie Ren: You’ve argued that locally led development has gone by many names, championed at different times by both Republicans and Democrats. Given recent turmoil and the overall dismantling of the traditional aid infrastructure, where do you see the current state of locally led development?
George Ingram: We’ve been on a two-decade journey along the path of locally led development. Think of it as demand-driven rather than supply-driven development. It mirrors what the business community learned 30 or 40 years ago—move decisionmaking as close to the customer as possible. The person on the ground, interacting with the community, understands their needs better than someone making decisions in Washington or Berlin. This is how development becomes real—by aligning with the priorities of local stakeholders. If they own the process, they will sustain it after our support has ended.
Right now, we have no idea what the new administration’s position is on locally led development. The infrastructure that supported it, built over decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations, is being upended. USAID staff responsible for these efforts have been furloughed or let go. Implementing partners who have been most effective at carrying out development work have had to furlough 70-80% of their staff. There’s nobody home in the U.S. aid system right now who truly understands how to do locally led development. Many of these people are being forced to seek new jobs outside the sector.
If the administration suddenly decides that locally led development is valuable, it will take years to rebuild what has been dismantled in a matter of months. Mark Green, the former Republican administrator of USAID, championed the idea of the “journey to self-reliance.” Rebuilding an infrastructure that took decades to develop will not happen overnight.
I’m not particularly optimistic about major improvements in key development areas in the next two to three years, especially outside many Asian countries.
George Ingram
Implications for global development progress
Junie Ren: After so many twists and turns in policy, leadership, and public opinion, where do you think we stand on development progress overall? Do you see us moving the needle in the right direction despite what’s happening? Where is the silver lining?
George Ingram: When you look at the last 30 to 40 years, there has been real progress in improving the welfare of people worldwide. Extreme poverty was cut in half from about two billion people to less than one billion. Life expectancy improved for more than ten years, and in the least developed countries, from 50 to over 60. Education has dramatically improved—the net enrollment rate in primary education increased globally to close to 90%.
However, much of that progress came to a halt during COVID-19. The extent of recovery and specific areas of progress remain unclear. The world needs to rekindle its development efforts, but the U.S.—which has been the largest official bilateral donor—has effectively removed itself from the playing field at precisely the moment when global collaboration is needed.
Other governments are cutting back on aid as well. The U.K. just announced a 40% reduction in its assistance budget, largely in response to U.S. pressure to increase defense spending. Other major donors—Germany, France, Netherlands, Sweden—have also cut back their aid programs.
This trend does not bode well for rapid progress in development. I’m not particularly optimistic about major improvements in key development areas in the next two to three years, especially outside many Asian countries. It will likely take five years or more, and success will be less dependent on foreign aid and more reliant on governments mobilizing their own resources internally.
Facts alone aren’t enough. Policymakers don’t operate primarily—or at least initially—on facts. They operate from the heart, shaped by their own experiences.
Ingram’s theory of change
Junjie Ren: Having worked with you, I would describe your approach to impact as multi-pronged. You engage with policymakers on the Hill, produce popular analyses here at Brookings, testify before Congress, and connect with universities and the media—from NPR and The Washington Post to local school journals. How would you characterize your personal theory of change? What strategy underpins this breadth of engagement?
George Ingram: I take that to mean: How do you influence policy and policymakers? You start with evidence. You need facts, and you need to distill those facts into three key bullet points. If you’re asked to give a 20-minute speech, people will remember three things. But the problem with researchers and think tankers is that we want to give them everything we know. It’s essential to identify the most critical points.
Facts alone aren’t enough. Policymakers don’t operate primarily—or at least initially—on facts. They operate from the heart, shaped by their own experiences. To get policymakers to listen to your facts and evidence, you need a human-interest story—something that speaks to their emotional side or aligns with their personal experience and priorities. The way you capture their mind is by speaking to where they are.
Another key point: You don’t do this alone. It’s not useful to be a lone voice. Policymakers respond to critical mass. It’s crucial to operate in coalitions and alliances, ensuring that multiple voices are delivering similar messages. And, in particular, you want unexpected allies—someone the policymaker wouldn’t expect to be on your side of an issue.
That happened when Gen. James Mattis, then Central Command commander, told the Congress “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.”
A similar shift happened in Congress a decade ago with Congressman Ted Yoho, a Republican from Florida. When elected, he was a foreign aid skeptic. But, after traveling with congressional colleagues to see aid projects firsthand, he came back understanding that foreign aid was doing some good work.” He particularly liked what OPIC (the Overseas Private Investment Corporation) was doing. He later became a sponsor of the BUILD Act, which transformed OPIC into the more impactful U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). Because he was a conservative who initially opposed foreign aid, he became an effective advocate among Republicans. They listened to him in a way they wouldn’t have listened to a Democratic supporter of foreign aid. But when someone who was against it changes their position, that’s the person who can shift minds.
Public opinion, misinformation, and policymaking
Junjie Ren: In one of CSD’s recent public events you moderated, the conversation touched on how public sentiment drives or stalls policy. What’s unique about today’s fast-moving digital media landscape when it comes to educating (or misinforming) the public on development issues?
George: Well, I’m glad you said “misinforming” because the mainstream media has been superb over the last four weeks in reporting the human element of the impact of the cutoff of U.S. foreign assistance.
Polling has demonstrated that while the American people aren’t necessarily excited about the term “foreign aid,” they do support what it accomplishes. Large majorities favor helping other countries with education, health, democracy, and economic development.
We held the public event on a recent poll showing that 89% of Americans think spending 1% of our budget on foreign aid is a good idea. It also showed that most Americans believe that we actually spend around 20% of the budget on foreign aid. When asked what percentage they think we should spend, they often say 10%. And when they learn that we actually spend only 1%, they think that’s reasonable.
Unfortunately, this kind of information does not get widely shared on social media.
The foreign aid and development communities need to figure out how to get their message on social media and counter irresponsible assertions—not just on foreign aid itself, but on the people who execute it. These are patriotic Americans who care about both the U.S. and the world, and they are being irresponsibly disparaged. That is simply unacceptable.
Related Content
Rethinking the global development architecture
Junjie Ren: We’ve seen proposals calling for a “clear-eyed reevaluation” of the entire global development infrastructure—especially in fragile contexts. What hurdles do you see in actually revamping that architecture? Do we first need a narrative shift to make development more relatable and compelling for broader audiences—both in the U.S. and internationally?
George Ingram: We definitely need a new narrative. We need to better explain why we engage in foreign aid and what it accomplishes. I think there’s good reason—80 years after the Marshall Plan and the design of the international aid architecture—to revisit how and what foreign aid does.
Unfortunately, what the Trump administration has done by simply tearing it down actually interferes with that rethink. It confuses the conversation and elevates irresponsible critics of foreign aid rather than fostering responsible critiques.
We need to move beyond ideological rhetoric and look at the evidence—the facts of what foreign aid actually accomplishes and where it falls short. We should focus on building a better understanding and a stronger global consensus on how aid can be most effective.
To restore progress in global development, we need the best thinking from academia, think tanks, civil society, business, and government. Each of these sectors brings valuable expertise and perspectives that can fertilize a new vision. The goal should be not to destroy the existing international development architecture but to refine and improve it.
The importance of aid transparency
Junjie Ren: Transparency is often seen as a cornerstone of effective aid. Where do we stand on global aid transparency right now?
George Ingram: Until last month, we had made significant progress in transparency, especially through the work of Publish What You Fund in helping to make real the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI). Most donors now provide annual data on what they’re doing—how much aid is given, what type of aid, in which countries, and through which implementers. Over the last 10 years, transparency in assistance has improved dramatically.
However, in the last month, we’ve seen the reverse—particularly with the U.S. government. USAID websites have been taken down, and just a few days ago, 10,000 USAID projects were terminated.
On what basis? Nobody knows. There’s been no analysis or explanation. This administration claims to value transparency, yet it has moved away from it in practice. It never laid out the rationale or criteria for its review of aid programs, nor has it explained what that review produced.
In effect, we’ve taken a gigantic leap backward from transparency in just the last month.
Junjie Ren: What ripple effects does this setback in transparency create for global initiatives that rely on open data?
George Ingram: When a major supporter of an initiative like IATI pulls back, other donors take notice. They might think, “If the U.S. isn’t doing it—and they were a leader—then maybe we don’t need to either.” This is a major setback for transparency as a whole.
Related Content
The frontier of digital public infrastructure
Junjie: Something I’ve noticed about you is your constant curiosity. You ask me all these IT questions (which I find flattering!), you stay on top of digital development trends, and you never stop learning. What’s next on the horizon for digital development and public infrastructure?
George Ingram: I think the next big step in digital development is advancing digital public infrastructure to a new level. Digital public infrastructure refers to digital capabilities—mainly software but also knowledge—viewed as a public good. Think of digital ID systems and financial transactions platforms in the same way we think about highways or port facilities.
A highway is a public investment, and while ports can sometimes be private investments, they frequently serve as public goods that enable broad economic and social activity. These foundational structures generate vast economic opportunities.
With this foundation in place, the private sector and civil society can build upon it. Today, digital capabilities are a fundamental requirement for development. No country can effectively function in today’s world without a citizenry that is digitally literate and the necessary digital infrastructure to support businesses and government operations.
Just look at Estonia—one of the most digitally advanced governments in the world. Their digital infrastructure makes government services more responsive and cost-effective while also supporting private sector growth.
Another powerful example is Ukraine. The country spent a decade building digital capabilities before the Russian invasion. This digital foundation has been one of Ukraine’s key sources of resilience in defending itself against Russia. Ukraine’s experience underscores just how vital digital development is—not just for social and economic security, but for national security as well.
Tips for convening across geographies and sectors
Junjie Ren: You have a reputation for convening these legendary roundtables with diverse actors—people from the public sector, private sector, NGOs, academic circles, and Global South. You synthesize multiple viewpoints and produce evidence-based proposals. What do you think makes a good moderator or convener in these spaces? Any tips for bringing out the best in participants?
Well, I think the moderator needs to listen and not talk much. That’s the number one principle.
Secondly, have initial topics and questions prepared, and provide them to the panelists beforehand so they can prepare. Make sure your topics are broad rather than narrow. You want to appeal not just to a small group of researchers but to a wider audience interested in a range of issues. It’s important to engage the audience.
The best dialogues start with the panel but then bring the audience into the conversation. Rather than waiting until the last 15 minutes to invite audience participation, bring them in throughout the discussion.
Related Content
Crafting solutions: Ingram shares lessons from woodworking and life
Junjie Ren: Last but not least, how do you unwind (and do you unwind)? What do you do in your free time? Please tell us about that personal slice of life.
Decades ago, I bought an old house on Capitol Hill that needed renovations, and I took on the project myself. Later, I bought an old farmhouse in Virginia and renovated that as well. That kind of country carpentry sparked my interest in repairing and building furniture. I eventually took several classes in chair-making and other woodworking techniques.
Now, my wife tells me I can’t build any more chairs because we have too many in the house! So these days, I do woodworking for neighbors and friends instead. I find it incredibly relaxing. In many ways, it requires the same mental skills I use at Brookings when working on a paper—problem-solving and thinking through challenges.
Woodworking is about constantly learning new skills and solutions. The wonder of wood is the beauty of the grain, wood is hard but planned smooth it has a soft tactile feel, and wood often presents unexpected surprises (good and bad). And it is forgiving—make mistakes, and they will often reveal a new path forward.
Junjie Ren: That’s a great note to end on. Thank you, George, for your insights today.
George Ingram: Thank you, Junjie. Always a pleasure.
**The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.**We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).