The recent stop-work order issued by the U.S. State Department has sent shockwaves through the international development sector, particularly among organisations reliant on U.S. government funding. This abrupt halt to ongoing programmes has forced many organisations to confront difficult questions about the nature of their partnerships, the resilience of their networks, and the extent to which solidarity exists among actors in the Global South and North.
For decades, national and subnational African communities, grassroots groups, and community-based organisations have partnered with U.S. NGOs and development agencies. These partnerships have often been characterised by financial dependencies, but they have also facilitated the transfer of knowledge, capacity-building, and the co-creation of solutions to pressing development challenges. The stop-work order now serves as a litmus test for the depth of these relationships. Are they truly partnerships of equals, or have they been predominantly transactional, contingent on financial flows rather than shared vision and mutual commitment?
The Response from Majority World Organisations
An important aspect of this crisis is the response or lack thereof from organisations based in the Majority World. If solidarity has been muted or slow to manifest, does this suggest that partnerships were primarily financial, rather than deeply rooted in shared goals and values? Have these organisations been left out of critical decision-making processes, treated more as implementers rather than as equal partners? The absence of vocal advocacy from some regions could indicate a reluctance to challenge dominant funding structures or a pragmatic resignation to the reality that U.S. funding has historically dictated development priorities.
At the same time, the lack of a coordinated response may also be attributed to the precarious position many Majority World organisations find themselves in. Without alternative funding streams, many may fear alienating potential future donors by openly criticising the U.S. government’s decisions. Also, the broader geopolitical implications of the funding freeze raise concerns about the ability of organisations to sustain critical programmes without U.S. support.
Support for U.S. NGO Staff and Associates
Another critical question is whether staff and associates of U.S. NGOs feel they have received adequate support to navigate the uncertainties brought about by the stop-work order. Many of these professionals have dedicated their careers to humanitarian and development work, often in challenging environments. The abrupt halt to funding and programming has left many in limbo, uncertain about the future of their work and the communities they serve.
InterAction, a leading alliance of U.S.-based international NGOs, has strongly criticised the stop-work order, warning of the irreparable damage it could cause to global development efforts. Their statement highlights not only the immediate humanitarian impact but also the strategic implications of ceding influence to geopolitical competitors. However, it remains unclear whether this advocacy is translating into tangible support for the professionals directly affected by the funding freeze.
How U.S.-Based NGOs Are Responding to Their Majority World Partners
The stop-work order has not only impacted U.S.-based NGOs but also their partners in the Majority World, many of whom now face funding gaps and operational uncertainty. Some U.S. NGOs have sought to cushion the impact by advocating for emergency bridge funding, leveraging private donors, and reallocating unrestricted funds to keep essential programmes running. Others have engaged in high-level diplomatic advocacy, pressuring the U.S. government to exempt critical humanitarian programmes from the freeze.
However, there are indications that responses have been uneven. While some U.S. NGOs have made concerted efforts to communicate openly with their partners, others have struggled to provide clear guidance, leaving Majority World organisations uncertain about their futures. This raises broader questions about the extent to which these partnerships were built on trust, transparency, and shared responsibility, or whether they remained hierarchical and donor-driven.
Lessons for the Future of Partnerships
The current crisis underscores the urgent need for development partnerships to evolve beyond financial dependencies. True partnerships must be built on mutual accountability, shared governance, and a commitment to long-term sustainability. Organisations in the Majority World must have a seat at the decision-making table, not just as implementing partners but as co-architects of development strategies.
In addition, this situation presents an opportunity for Majority World organisations to strengthen alternative funding mechanisms, including regional philanthropy, South-South cooperation, and innovative financing models. The reliance on U.S. funding has long been a vulnerability, and this stop-work order may serve as a wake-up call for organisations to diversify their financial bases.
Reconstructing Partnerships for a Sustainable Future
Moving forward, the reconstruction of partnerships should centre on a more balanced and sustainable model of collaboration. Lessons from the RINGO systems change process provide a valuable roadmap for rethinking how partnerships are structured, focusing on equity, power shifts, and locally-led development. A new framework for partnerships should include:
- Decolonising Development Cooperation – Shifting power dynamics so that Majority World organisations are not merely recipients of aid but active decision-makers in shaping development priorities and policies.
- Flexible and Locally-Led Funding Models – Encouraging funding mechanisms that prioritise locally-led initiatives and provide unrestricted, long-term funding that allows organisations to build resilience and independence.
- Mutual Learning and Exchange – Facilitating peer learning and knowledge-sharing between Global South and Global North organisations, ensuring that expertise flows in both directions rather than being unidirectional.
- Regional and South-South Collaboration – Strengthening intra-regional partnerships among Majority World organisations to reduce reliance on Northern donors and create sustainable networks of support.
- Advocacy and Collective Action – Encouraging organisations in both the Global South and North to engage in joint advocacy efforts, ensuring that development cooperation is shaped by the needs and aspirations of local communities rather than external geopolitical interests.
The RINGO initiative has demonstrated that reimagining partnerships requires shifting from a transactional model to one based on shared governance and long-term sustainability. Partnerships can become more resilient and equitable by fostering co-leadership, redistributing decision-making power, and ensuring that funding flows align with local priorities rather than donor-driven agendas
In the end, this moment of crisis is also a moment of reflection. How development actors both in the U.S. and the Majority World respond to this challenge will shape the future of global development cooperation. The true test of partnership is not in times of abundance but in moments of adversity. The coming months will reveal whether the relationships forged over decades can withstand this storm or whether they will unravel under the weight of financial uncertainty.
Read more articles by Charles Kojo Vandyck
Also, read his book titled The Art and Science of Consistent Leadership: Steady Steps to Extraordinary Impact. You can find it on Amazon here: The Art and Science of Consistent Leadership.
