Susan Appe, University at Albany, State University of New York

The U.S. government gives other nations US$68 billion of foreign assistance annually – more than any other country. Over half of this sum is managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, including funds for programs aimed at fighting hunger and disease outbreaks, providing humanitarian relief in war zones, and supporting other lifesaving programs such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

President Donald Trump suspended most U.S. foreign aid on Jan. 20, 2025, the day he took office for the second time. The next day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a stop-work order that for 90 days halted foreign aid funding disbursements by agencies like USAID.

A week later, dozens of senior USAID officials were put on leave after the Trump administration reportedly accused them of trying to “circumvent” the aid freeze. The Office of Management and Budget is now pausing and evaluating all foreign aid to see whether it adheres to the Trump administration’s policies and priorities.

I’m a scholar of foreign aid who researches what happens to the U.S. government’s local partners in the countries receiving this assistance when funding flows are interrupted. Most of these partners are local nonprofits that build schools, vaccinate children, respond to emergencies and provide other key goods and services. These organizations often rely on foreign funding.

A ‘reckless’ move

Aid to Egypt and Israel was spared, along with some emergency food aid. The U.S. later waived the stop-work order for the distribution of lifesaving medicines.

Nearly all of the other aid programs remained on hold as of Jan. 29, 2025.

Many development professionals criticized the freeze, highlighting the disruption it will cause in many countries. A senior USAID official issued an anonymous statement calling it “reckless.”

InterAction, the largest coalition of international nongovernmental organizations in the U.S., called the halt contrary to U.S. global leadership and values.

Of the $35 billion to $40 billion in aid that USAID distributes annually, $22 billion is delivered through grants and contracts with international organizations to implement programs. These can be further subcontracted to local partners in recipient countries.

When this aid is frozen, scaled back or cut off altogether, these local partners scramble to fill in the gaps.

The State Department manages the rest of the $68 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid, along with other agencies, such as the Peace Corps.

How local nonprofits respond and adapt

While sudden disruptions to foreign aid are always destabilizing, research shows that aid flows have fluctuated since 1960, growing more volatile over the years. My research partners and I have found that these disruptions harm local service providers, although many of them manage to carry on their work.

Over the years, I have conducted hundreds of interviews with international nongovernmental organizations and these nonprofits’ local partners across Latin America, Africa and Asia about their services and funding sources. I study the strategies those development and humanitarian assistance groups follow when aid gets halted. These four are the most common.

1. Shift to national or local government funding

In many cases, national and local governments end up supporting groups that previously relied on foreign aid, filling the void.

An educational program spearheaded by a local Ecuadorian nonprofit, Desarrollo y Autogestión, called Accelerated Basic Cycle is one example. This program targets young people who have been out of school for more than three years. It allows them to finish elementary school – known as the “basic cycle” in Ecuador – in one year to then enter high school. First supported in part by funding from foreign governments, it transitioned to being fully funded by Ecuador’s government and then became an official government program run by the country’s ministry of education.

2. Earn income

Local nonprofits can also earn income by charging fees for their services or selling goods, which allows them to fulfill their missions while generating some much-needed cash.

For example, SEND Ghana is a development organization that has promoted good governance and equality in Ghana since its founding in 1998. In 2009, SEND Ghana created a for-profit subsidiary called SENDFiNGO that administers microfinance programs and credit unions. That subsidiary now helps fund SEND Ghana’s work.

Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee and the Grameen Bank, which is also in Bangladesh, use this approach too.

3. Tap local philanthropy

Networks such as Worldwide Initiatives for Grantmaker Support and Global Fund for Community Foundations have emerged to promote local philanthropy around the world. They press governments to adopt policies that encourage local philanthropy. This kind of giving has become easier to do thanks to the emergence of crowdfunding platforms.

Still, complex tax systems and the lack of incentives for giving in many countries that receive foreign aid are persistent challenges. Some governments have stepped in. India’s corporate social responsibility law, enacted in 2014, boosted charitable incentives. For example, it requires 2% of corporate profits to go to social initiatives in India.

4. Obtain support from diaspora communities

Diasporas are people who live outside of their countries of origin, or where their families came from, but maintain strong ties to places they consider to be their homeland.

Local nonprofits around the globe are leveraging diaspora communities’ desire to contribute to economic development in their countries of origin. In Colombia, for example, Fundación Carla Cristina, a nongovernmental organization, runs nursery schools and provides meals to low-income children.

It gets some of its funding from diaspora-led nonprofits in the U.S., such as the New England Association for Colombian Children, which is based outside of Boston, and Give To Colombia in Miami.

A push for the locals to do more

Trump’s stop-work order coincided with a resurgence of a localization push that’s currently influencing foreign aid from many countries.

With localization, nations providing foreign aid seek to increase the role of local authorities and organizations in development and humanitarian assistance. USAID has been a leading proponent of localization.

I believe that the abruptness of the stop-work order is likely to disrupt many development projects. These projects include support to Ukrainian aid groups that provide emergency humanitarian assistance and projects serving meals to children who don’t get enough to eat.

To be sure, sometimes there are good reasons for aid to be halted. But when that happens, sound and responsible donor exit strategies are essential to avoid the loss of important local services.

Susan Appe, Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy, University at Albany, State University of New York

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

John W. Daily, University of Colorado Boulder

As wind-driven wildfires spread through the Los Angeles area in January 2025, fire-spotting technology and computer models were helping firefighters understand the rapidly changing environment they were facing.

That technology has evolved over the years, yet some techniques are very similar to those used over 100 years ago.

I have spent several decades studying combustion, including wildfire behavior and the technology used to track fires and predict where wildfires might turn. Here’s a quick tour of the key technologies used today.

Spotting fires faster

First, the fire must be discovered.

Often wildfires are reported by people seeing smoke. That hasn’t changed, but other ways fires are spotted have evolved.

In the early part of the 20th century, the newly established U.S. Forest Service built fire lookout towers around the country. The towers were topped by cabins with windows on all four walls and provided living space for the fire lookouts. The system was motivated by the Great Fire of 1910 that burned 3 million acres in Washington, Idaho and Montana and killed 87 people.

Today, cameras watch over many high-risk areas. California has more than 1,100 cameras watching for signs of smoke. Artificial intelligence systems continuously analyze the images to provide data for firefighters to quickly respond. AI is a way to train a computer program to recognize repetitive patterns: smoke plumes in the case of fire.

NOAA satellites paired with AI data analysis also generate alerts but over a wider area. They can detect heat signatures, map fire perimeters and burned areas, and track smoke and pollutants to assess air quality and health risks.

Forecasting fire behavior

Once a fire is spotted, one immediate task for firefighting teams is to estimate how the fire is going to behave so they can deploy their limited firefighting resources most effectively.

Fire managers have seen many fires and have a sense of the risks their regions face. Today, they also have computer simulations that combine data about the terrain, the materials burning and the weather to help predict how a fire is likely to spread.

Fuel models

Fuel models are based on the ecosystem involved, using fire history and laboratory testing. In Southern California, for example, much of the wildland fuel is chaparral, a type of shrubland with dense, rocky soil and highly flammable plants in a Mediterranean climate. Chaparral is one of the fastest-burning fuel types, and fires can spread quickly in that terrain.

For human-made structures, things are a bit more complex. The materials a house is made of – if it has wood siding, for example – and the environment around it, such as how close it is to trees or wooden fences, play an important role in how likely it is to burn and how it burns.

Weather and terrain

Terrain is also important because it influences local winds and because fire tends to run faster uphill than down. Terrain data is well known thanks to satellite imagery and can easily be incorporated into computer codes.

Weather plays another critical role in fire behavior. Fires need oxygen to burn, and the windier it is, the more oxygen is available to the fire. High winds also tend to generate embers from burning vegetation that can be blown up to 5 miles in the highest winds, starting spot fires that can quickly spread.

Today, large computer simulations can forecast the weather. There are global models that cover the entire Earth and local models that cover smaller areas but with better resolution that provides greater detail.

Both provide real-time data on the weather for creating fire behavior simulations.

Modeling how flames spread

Flame-spread models can then estimate the likely movement of a fire.

Scientists build these models by studying past fires and conducting laboratory experiments, combined with mathematical models that incorporate the physics of fire. With local terrain, fuel and real-time weather information, these simulations can help fire managers predict a fire’s likely behavior.

Advanced modeling can account for fuel details such as ground-level plant growth and tree canopies, including amount of cover, tree height and tree density. These models can estimate when a fire will reach the tree canopy and how that will affect the fire’s spread.

Forecasting helps, but wind can change fast

All these tools are made available to firefighters in computer applications and can help fire crews as they respond to wildfires.

However, wind can rapidly change speed or direction, and new fires can start in unexpected places, meaning fire managers know they have to be prepared for many possible outcomes – not just the likely outcomes they see on their computer screens.

Ultimately, during a fire, firefighting strategy is based on human judgment informed by experience, as well as science and technology.

John W. Daily, Research Professor in Thermo Fluid Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Paul F. Clark, Penn State

Whole Foods workers at the Philadelphia flagship store in the city’s Art Museum area voted to unionize on Jan. 27, 2025. They are the first store in the Amazon-owned grocery chain to do so.

Paul Clark, a professor of labor and employment relations at Penn State University, talked to Kate Kilpatrick, The Conversation U.S. Philadelphia editor, about why this is happening – and why in Philly.

The Whole Foods workers in Philadelphia voted 130-100 in favor of unionizing. What do we know about their grievances?

From what I understand, these workers have felt that compensation, benefits and work conditions were not what they should be. Some are long-standing employees and say they struggle to afford their basic necessities.

Why did the union drive effort succeed now, and in Philly?

In the last five years, there has been a surge in union organizing. There are a number of reasons for this. First is the labor market. Low unemployment emboldens workers to take the risk of organizing a union. If workers feel their employer can’t replace them or that they can easily get a similar job, they are less fearful of angering the employer by trying to organize.

The second reason is that the Biden administration was a labor-friendly administration – perhaps the most in history. The U.S. president appoints a majority of members to the National Labor Relations Board, which interprets and enforces the labor law that governs organizing. Under Biden, the NLRB regularly issued decisions that provided greater protection to workers and held employers accountable when they violated workers’ rights. During Republican administrations, the board’s decisions are generally pro-business and provide less protection to workers. So workers had the wind at their back in that regard.

Also recent polling shows that 70% of Americans approve of unions, compared with less than half of Americans just 15 years ago. The generally favorable view of unions creates a more supportive environment for organizing.

And the last factor is that Generation Z, the youngest group of workers, clearly wants more out of their work and employment than previous generations. So we see a lot of young workers across the country organizing at Starbucks, Trader Joe’s, Apple and now at Whole Foods and other stores.

Why Philadelphia? Philadelphia is a relatively strong union town. The percentage of the workforce that is represented by a union is higher in Philadelphia than in most cities and areas of the country. So when workers express interest in organizing in Philadelphia they get a lot of support. Other unions might turn out members for their rallies, pressure the company to not oppose the organizing drive and offer other aid and assistance.

The starting wage at the Philadelphia Whole Foods store is US$16 an hour. Is that considered low when the city’s minimum wage is just $7.25 an hour?

The minimum wage in Philadelphia is $7.25 because that is the federal minimum wage. States can institute a higher minimum wage if they choose to, but Pennsylvania is one of the few Northeast states that hasn’t adopted a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum. The minimum wages in New Jersey, New York and Massachusetts, for example, are $15 or above.

But the minimum wage in Pennsylvania is almost irrelevant because of today’s labor market. Unemployment is low, and many employers have to offer significantly more than the minimum wage to get workers.

And the minimum wage is supposed to be a starting wage for workers with little experience or seniority. What workers want is a living wage. According to the MIT Living Wage Calculator, a single person in Philadelphia needs to earn around $24 per hour to cover the basic costs of living. And Whole Foods is a profitable business. It’s part of Amazon, one of the most profitable, largest companies in the world. I think workers at these companies believe that they play an important role in generating those profits because of the work they do. And they think they should get a fair share of those profits.

How might the Whole Foods workers expect the company to fight back?

When employees win an organizing election as the Whole Food workers have, they have won a battle but not the war. The purpose of forming a union is to improve wages and benefits and working conditions, and you do that by negotiating a contract with the company. That is the next step in the process. But the law only requires employers to bargain with employees – to meet at reasonable times and exchange proposals. It doesn’t compel them to agree to anything.

The typical strategy of companies that aggressively oppose their workers having a union is to drag their feet in bargaining and not sign a contract. That is technically illegal, but labor law in the U.S. is relatively weak, and with good legal advice you can drag out bargaining for a very long time.

We’ve seen this with the Starbucks campaign. The first Starbucks store unionized in 2021. Over 540 stores have organized since then. And Starbucks workers at those stores still do not have a contract.

Could the new Trump administration have any impact on how this plays out in Philly?

The fact that the Trump administration has taken over gives companies more confidence that the standard delay strategy will work.

On Jan. 28, 2025, President Donald Trump fired Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel of the NLRB. The general counsel is the official at the board who basically enforces the National Labor Relations Act. Abruzzo was very aggressive in holding employers accountable if they violated the act and in protecting the rights of workers who tried to organize.

Trump’s approach to labor law in his first four years in office was at the other extreme. He appointed as general counsel Peter Robb, who was seen as far less aggressive in protecting workers’ rights and his interpretations of the law were much more pro-business.

Under the Biden administration, if a company was coming to the bargaining table month after month and not agreeing to anything, the NLRB would eventually step in and cite the employer for not bargaining in good faith. The NLRB could find the employer guilty of unfair labor practices and genuinely put pressure on it to bargain a contract.

Based on the board’s actions during the first Trump administration, the board in the next few years will be more likely to allow companies to delay and delay in reaching a contract.

What leverage do the Whole Foods employees have?

They can go on strike. But Amazon has the resources to put up with a strike at one Whole Foods store forever.

Other Whole Foods stores may be considering union drives. The more stores that organize, the more momentum the Philadelphia store will have. But for now, these workers in Philly are going to have their work cut out for them.

That said, they won’t be alone. The Whole Foods workers organized with the UFCW Local 1776, which is basically a statewide union that’s been around for decades. It has a lot of resources and experienced and knowledgeable leaders, plus the resources of the national UFCW. So it’s going to lean into this fight, and these workers will also have a lot of support from the rest of the labor community in Philadelphia.

Earlier this month, three Congressional representatives from Pennsylvania wrote a letter to Jason Buechel, the Whole Foods CEO, and to Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder, that expressed their concerns about efforts to suppress the union drive. Is that support typical?

It’s not unusual. But there is no legal basis for elected officials to intervene in a labor-management dispute. I’d put that under the heading of community support.

You have a lot of progressive elected officials in Philadelphia who are supportive of unions, and that’s true in Pennsylvania right up to the governor.

Paul F. Clark, Professor of Labor and Employment Relations, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.