Podcast Summary: This Week in Global Development

Episode: US amps up aid restrictions, and those left behind in era of self-interest
Date: January 29, 2026
Hosts: Adva Saldinger, David Ainsworth, Rumbi Chakamba
Guests: Anna Gavel (Managing Editor, Devex), Jesse Chase-Lubitz (Reporter, Devex)

Episode Overview

This episode examines the week’s top stories impacting the global development sector, focusing on:

• Sweeping changes to US foreign aid rules, particularly the dramatic expansion of the Mexico City Policy (the "global gag rule").
• The shifting priorities in global aid—from poverty reduction to donor self-interest.
• Challenges in development finance, especially regarding how "official development assistance" (ODA) is counted and distributed.
• Evolving accountability mechanisms at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

Key Discussion Points

1. US State Department’s Expansion of the Mexico City Policy

Timestamps: 00:04 – 13:33

What’s New?

• The US State Department unveiled draft rules expanding the Mexico City Policy, traditionally restricting US funding to organizations providing abortion-related services, now to encompass policies on “gender ideology” and Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI).
• The reach now includes not just international NGOs but also:
  • US-based NGOs
  • International/multilateral organizations (e.g., UN agencies)
  • Some foreign governments

Implementation Questions & Concerns

• Policy scope is notably vague, prompting confusion and “massive” compliance burdens.
• Potential to disrupt pooled funding (e.g., with UN agencies) and widely-used development programs like women's economic empowerment.
• Uncertainty about compliance for programs run out of other US agencies (e.g., USDA, CDC), though the State Department covers the bulk of foreign assistance (04:39).
• Applies to grants and cooperative agreements, not contracts, but many implementers are pre-complying out of caution.

Constitutional Issues & Legal Challenges

• First-time application to US organizations, with rules attempting to skirt direct constitutional infringements by requiring segregation of “prohibited” activities—a solution described as “pretty unworkable” by Adva Saldinger (06:59).

Anticipated Impact

• “I think you’re going to see maybe possibly some over compliance, because... people are naturally worried about losing U.S. funding.” – Anna Gavel (07:47)
• Human rights and gender rights activists fear an expansion of US ideological influence worldwide, particularly in ways seen as erasing transgender existence or undermining local laws on women's rights.
• Risks impacting humanitarian settings, e.g., by curtailing support for victims of gender-based violence in refugee camps (09:39).
• Estimated cost: $342 million a year, with substantial new workload for a “capacity-strapped” State Department (12:19).

Notable Quotes

• “These changes now dramatically up the ante for the aid community.” – Anna Gavel (02:21)
• “It only applied to reproductive health...what’s really significant is this now applies to all foreign assistance funding, so that includes humanitarian assistance.” – Adva Saldinger (09:55)

2. The Erosion and Re-direction of "Official Development Assistance"

Timestamps: 14:03 – 21:31

Trends and Concerns

• New Report (Eurodad): ODA is increasingly counted in ways that stray from its original purpose (14:29)
  • Grant equivalents for loans
  • In-country refugee hosting costs
  • Debt forgiveness
  • Private sector instruments
  • Defense and security spending now included under development funds
• Result: Less aid actually reaches least-developed countries; more is redirected by donor priorities or for domestic benefit.
• In some cases, debt repayments outstrip aid received.
• Example: Shift in European aid, especially after the war in Ukraine; increased use of aid to promote defense/security or domestic economic objectives (16:35).

The Poorest Left Behind

• Declining share of ODA going to LDCs: fell from 20% (2010) to 13% (2021) (20:23).
• Donors increasingly tie aid to migration control or resource access (e.g., minerals in DRC).

Notable Quotes

• “The Eurodad report was really saying, we're seeing this shift of development assistance moving away from the needs of least developed countries...to donor-specific, self-interested aid.” – Jesse Chase-Lubitz (16:52)
• “Where does this leave the poorest, most fragile countries? ... They will be struggling in the future.” – Anna Gavel (19:26)

3. Accountability & Reform at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Timestamps: 21:31 – 26:08

Recent Developments

• AIIB updated its accountability mechanism after criticism by NGOs for lack of transparency and zero accepted cases.
• Changes: Requires a meaningful management response within 45 days; process remains multi-staged.

Practical Issues

• Ongoing standoff over a tourism project in Indonesia: local communities and their watchdog are locked in discussions with AIIB, but hesitate to use the accountability mechanism due to lack of precedent and excessive paperwork requirements.
• Real test remains—will AIIB finally accept and address an accountability case?

Notable Quotes

• “[NGOs] were just like, why would we go through that step if we know that they're not going to look at it if no other cases have been eligible?” – Jesse Chase-Lubitz (25:25)
• “It’s one thing to have the mechanism; it’s another thing to use it and make it usable.” – Adva Saldinger (26:12)

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• On US aid restrictions:
  “One of the things that I heard yesterday from someone who’s based in Kenya is real concerns about...what this could mean for people in Kenya, where they have fought for rights around abortion and women's rights.” – Adva Saldinger (08:33)

• On shifting priorities:
  “There are going to be exceptions...like DRC with critical minerals. There are countries, Europe for instance, trying to tie aid to curbing migration...But this is all...not altruistic and poorer countries do not fit into this paradigm.” – Anna Gavel (18:50)

• On AIIB accountability:
  “The real test will be do they actually accept cases and what do they do when that happens?” – Adva Saldinger (26:08)

Important Timestamps

• 00:04: Episode introduction and Mexico City Policy background
• 01:23: Details on expansion of policy and implications
• 04:39: Which agencies and types of funding are affected
• 09:39: Humanitarian and health space implications
• 12:19: Discussing implementation capacity and costs
• 14:03: Discussion of ODA and the Eurodad report
• 16:35: Aid trends, defense spending, and “self-interested” assistance
• 20:23: Data on declining aid to LDCs and shifting donor priorities
• 21:31: Prioritization debates in shrinking grant environments
• 23:04: AIIB’s revised accountability mechanism & Indonesian project
• 26:08: Conclusion and final thoughts

Conclusion

This episode offers a deep dive into how policy changes—both in Washington and internationally—are reshaping the practice of global development. The panel emphasizes the broad implications of new US aid restrictions, the growing prioritization of donor interests over poverty reduction, and ongoing accountability struggles in major development banks. With uncertainty ahead, listeners are left with key questions about who will benefit from aid flows in this new era—and who will be left behind.