Foreign Aid, Power, and Geopolitics: Reflections on Development Cooperaton in a More Fragmented World
Recent development debates have largely centered on the steep reduction in financial resources triggered by the Trump administration. However, what remains insufficiently acknowledged is the extent to which these disruptions have undermined the conceptual foundations of international cooperation—particularly in terms of legitimacy, norms, and the evolving strategic positioning of the Global South.
August 3 marks the end of a 180-day period during which, on the instruction of President Trump, a decision is to be made regarding the continued membership in and support for all intergovernmental organizations in which the United States participates. As with the previously announced 90-day review of U.S. foreign aid, this process is unlikely to result in a structured analysis with actionable recommendations informed by experts who actually understand the issues. Instead, once again, the focus appears to be on disruption, intimidation of international partners, and symbolic bullying.
Both processes—the one concerning U.S. foreign aid and the one concerning participation in international organizations—have already had significant impacts, precisely because of or despite their unstructured and crude execution. These impacts include avoidable human suffering, particularly in many African countries, and a financial tsunami for the United Nations, as reflected in the ongoing UN80 reform process.
We are right to ask how U.S. funding cuts have left people without essential care, such as access to HIV/AIDS medication. Yet we have paid too little attention to the broader shift: What does it mean when the U.S., as a global superpower, not only ignores the 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but actively seeks to reframe them as a “soft global governance” agenda seen as contrary to American interests? These developments reflect a deeper trend to change the international mindset—what might be called a New Washington Dissensus.
The Trump administration is pursuing an explicitly anti-multilateralist policy rooted in national sovereignty, geopolitical calculation, and transactional economics. Conspiracy theories played a significant role in justifying actions like the dismantling of USAID. Global norms, including the SDGs, are cast as threats to U.S. interests precisely because they promote forms of cooperative governance. The withdrawal from international organizations, disregard for established norms (even to the point of military threats), and blunt pressure on other nations—such as the baseless accusations of “genocide” against South Africa—signal a paradigm shift. It redefines the balance between values and interests, privileging short-term political dominance over long-term global cooperation.
For many countries in the Global South, these changes represent a turning point. Although the retreat of the United States from the multilateral system creates new space for strategic repositioning—particularly for politically and economically strong developing countries through expanded South-South cooperation and closer ties with China and even Russia—this newly gained room for maneuver also brings new dependencies, increased geopolitical fragmentation, and heightened vulnerability to foreign political coercion. Actors in the Global South typically assert their independence through the increasingly attractive principle of “multialignment,” yet many still find themselves drawn into the logic of global bloc formation.
All of this leads to systemic-level transformations: the global architecture of development cooperation is being seriously destabilized by the withdrawal of the United States. Other donor countries are following suit, and the United Nations is, in many areas, largely paralyzed. The weakening of coordinating bodies such as the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) undermines long-standing principles of effectiveness and coherence. This results not only in financial shortfalls but also in a loss of legitimacy for the previously Western-dominated cooperation model.
This rupture in the international development landscape has not only immediate but also long-term humanitarian consequences. Medeiros Cavalcanti et al. estimate that, due to U.S. foreign aid budget cuts, an additional 14 million deaths could occur by 2030. Refugee camps in various parts of the world have been severely underfunded since the Trump administration implemented these cuts, thereby contributing, among other things, to worsening conflict situations (e.g., in Sudan).
The new global situation also alters power dynamics in international politics. Authoritarian regimes in the Global South interpret the withdrawal of the United States as an opportunity to expand their scope of action while Western actors’ influence continues to wane. The resulting new geopolitical dynamics are fraught with risks—particularly concerning new dependencies and strategic vulnerabilities.
Moreover, the current situation highlights that the traditional separation between development policy and geopolitics is increasingly untenable. Development policy has never been neutral—it has always served as a tool of power politics. But in times of heightened systemic competition, it takes on new significance: as a lever for shaping global governance processes and as a means to reinforce rules-based, value-driven structures. This places a responsibility on actors to position themselves more clearly—strategically, normatively, and institutionally. An evident indication of the new, close connection between development and geopolitics at the European level is the Global Gateway initiative, launched in late 2021, which aims to offer a European alternative to China’s dominant, infrastructure-focused Belt and Road Initiative.
A critical issue here is the development of new cooperation formats. The Global South is, of course, not a homogeneous bloc but a diverse landscape of differing interests, priorities, and government systems. Development policy strategies must reflect this reality. Neither one-dimensional poverty logic nor simplified governance indicators are sufficient to capture complex realities. Instead, a differentiated, dialogue-oriented approach is needed—one that places pluralistic partnerships on equal footing at the center.
Ultimately, development policy must undergo a fundamental structural realignment. The current crisis goes far beyond dramatic aid cuts—it presents a critical opportunity to rethink outdated institutional routines, foster more strategic coherence across government departments, and enhance coordination with international aid organizations. In doing so, development cooperation can move toward a more adaptive, inclusive, and geopolitically aware model fit for a fragmented world.
Stephan Klingebiel is Head of the department “Inter- and Transnational Cooperation” at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) in Bonn. He is Global Fellow at Ewha Womans University, Seoul (Republic of Korea), Visiting Professor at the University of Turin (Italy) and Honorary Distinguished Fellow at the Jindal School of Government and Public Policy (India).
Email: stephan.klingebiel@idos-research.de
Andy Sumner is Professor of International Development at King’s College in London and President of the European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes. He is also a Senior Non-Resident Research Fellow at the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research and the Center for Global Development; and a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and the Royal Society of Arts.
Email: andrew.sumner@kcl.ac.uk
Photo by Thiago Matos
