US Aid Freeze: Self-Executing Order Paralyzes Global Humanitarian Efforts, Leaving Millions at Risk

USAID Freeze
1

January 29, 2025

This is Part 5 published on Jan 29th in my ongoing series examining the ongoing US Aid Freeze. For a better understanding, check out the other posts in the series, as I have tried to document this evolving situation:

The uncertainty and anxiety that have gripped the humanitarian and development sector since the announcement of a U.S. foreign assistance freeze, and the subsequent release of OMB Memorandum M-25-13, have crystallized into a stark new reality.

On January 28, 2025, USAID’s Office of Acquisition & Assistance (OAA) Director Jami Rogers issued a directive that throws the global humanitarian and development sector into further chaos. Unlike previous guidance that suggested a process of individual notifications, this new communication, posted on USAID’s Implementing Partner Notices portal and addressed to all implementing partners, mandates an immediate halt to all USAID-funded activities worldwide, regardless of whether organizations have received specific stop-work orders.

This isn’t a process of waiting for individual stop-work orders; the directive is self-executing, requiring immediate compliance from every organization, regardless of their specific funding mechanism or program focus. To be clear, this isn’t a phased approach or a selective pause; it’s a blanket stop-work order impacting every organization, program, and individual connected to U.S. foreign assistance funding, regardless of whether they have received individual notifications. The message is clear: stop work now, and confirm compliance with your designated Contracting or Agreement Officer (CO/AO).

The Order Becomes Reality: Understanding the January 28th Directive

The January 28th directive from USAID’s OAA Director Jami Rogers is not simply a warning or a suggestion; it’s a self-executing mandate with immediate and far-reaching consequences for the entire humanitarian and development sector. Here’s a breakdown of the key clauses and what they mean for implementing partners:

“Take immediate action to pause implementation of USAID program-funded activities and otherwise refrain from further commitments or expenditures of USAID funding, until further notice.”

Meaning: This is a blanket stop-work order. All activities funded by USAID, whether directly or indirectly, must cease immediately. “Further commitments or expenditures” means no new contracts, no new hiring, no new procurement, and no spending of any kind related to USAID-funded programs. This is a full stop, regardless of the program’s status or importance. In essence, any work connected to USAID funding must grind to a halt.

Confirm receipt and acknowledge the requirements of this notice with the cognizant CO/AO for your award, as soon as possible."

Meaning: This is not optional. Organizations are legally obligated to acknowledge receipt of the directive and confirm their compliance with the stop-work order to their designated USAID Contracting Officer or Agreement Officer (CO/AO). A CO is a U.S. government official with the authority to enter into, administer, and/or terminate contracts and make related determinations and findings on behalf of the U.S. government. An AO is similar to a CO but specifically deals with grants and cooperative agreements. These officers are the official points of contact within USAID for managing awards. Essentially, every organization must immediately report compliance, adding to the administrative load.

Subject to individual award terms, this notice applies to all awards (e.g., contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and other funding mechanisms) and funding at every tier…"

Meaning: The freeze applies universally. It doesn’t matter if you’re a prime contractor, a sub-grantee, a local partner, or even a vendor several steps removed from USAID. If the funding can be traced back to USAID, it’s frozen. This includes all types of funding mechanisms, leaving no room for ambiguity.

“…unless an implementing partner has received formal notification from their cognizant CO/AO that their award is covered, in whole or in part, by a current waiver.”

  • Meaning: The only exception to this blanket freeze is if an organization has received explicit, formal notification from their CO/AO stating that their specific program, or a portion of it, is covered by a waiver (such as the limited humanitarian waiver issued by Secretary of State Rubio). Importantly, this places the onus on organizations to seek clarification and confirmation, rather than assuming they are exempt. This also means that organizations that believe they might qualify for the humanitarian waiver cannot resume work until they receive explicit confirmation from their CO/AO. Given the lack of clear definitions around the waiver, this creates further delays and uncertainty. As noted in the Devex Pro Briefing, even activities that seem obviously “life-saving” might not be considered so under a narrow interpretation.

Implications:

  • Immediate Cessation of Activities: All USAID-funded work must stop immediately, regardless of whether a formal stop-work order has been received. This includes ongoing programs, planned activities, and even administrative tasks related to those programs.
  • Universal Application: The directive applies to every type of funding mechanism and every tier of implementation, from prime contractors to sub-grantees and local partners.
  • Compliance is Mandatory: Organizations are required to actively confirm compliance with the directive, creating an immediate administrative burden.
  • Waiver Uncertainty: The limited humanitarian waiver offers little immediate relief, as organizations must wait for formal confirmation from their CO/AO, and the criteria for qualifying remain unclear.

In essence, this directive has transformed the anticipated funding freeze into an immediate and comprehensive shutdown of USAID-funded activities worldwide. It’s a self-executing order that requires no further action from individual COs/AOs to take effect. This creates a level of disruption and uncertainty that is unprecedented in the history of U.S. foreign assistance.

The Humanitarian Waiver: A Glimmer of Hope, Shrouded in Uncertainty

The announcement of a humanitarian waiver by Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the morning of the 28th, intended to allow the continuation of “life-saving” assistance, was initially met with cautious optimism. However, a closer examination of the waiver, as detailed in a memo circulating online, reveals that it is far from a straightforward solution. While presented as a mechanism to ensure vital aid continues, the waiver’s vague language and strict conditions are creating more confusion and paralysis than relief.

What the Waiver Actually Says:

The reported waiver, issued on January 28, 2025, does the following:

  1. Authorizes Continuation of “Life-Saving Humanitarian Assistance”: It permits the continuation or resumption of programs deemed “life-saving,” defined as “core life-saving medicine, medical services, food, shelter, and subsistence assistance, as well as supplies and reasonable administrative costs as necessary to deliver such assistance.”
  2. Excludes Specific Activities: The waiver explicitly excludes activities related to “abortions, family planning conferences,” “gender or DEI ideology programs,” “transgender surgeries,” and “other non-life saving assistance.” This confirms the fears expressed during the Devex Pro Briefing about the targeting of specific program areas based on ideological grounds.
  3. Restricts Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA): MRA funds can only be used for the activities outlined in point #1 above and for the “repatriation of third country nationals to their country of origin or safe-third-country.” This severely limits the scope of refugee support.
  4. Requires Further Waivers: Any humanitarian assistance not explicitly covered by this waiver requires a separate request through the Director of Foreign Assistance at the Department of State.
  5. Temporary in Nature: The waiver explicitly states that the resumption of activities is “temporary in nature,” and no new contracts can be entered into without a separate waiver.

Why This “Relief” Creates Paralysis:

On the surface, the waiver appears to offer a path forward for essential programs. However, its vague language and restrictive conditions create a new set of challenges for humanitarian organizations:

  • The “Life-Saving” Catch-22: The waiver hinges on the definition of “life-saving,” yet this term is not clearly defined. This creates a dangerous Catch-22: Organizations cannot confidently resume programs without formal confirmation from their CO/AO that their activities qualify as “life-saving.” COs/AOs, in turn, are hesitant to issue such confirmations without clear guidance from above on how to interpret the term. Furthermore, there is a real risk of disagreement between organizations, CO/AOs, and the administration on what constitutes “life-saving,” leading to further delays and disputes. The result is paralysis. Organizations are forced to err on the side of caution, keeping even potentially life-saving programs suspended for fear of violating the waiver’s terms. The allowance for “reasonable administrative costs” is also troublingly vague, leaving organizations to guess which essential operational costs are permissible.
  • Integrated Programs, Impossible Choices: Modern humanitarian response is inherently integrated. Programs often combine multiple components, such as cash assistance, protection monitoring, and legal support. How does an organization separate the “life-saving” elements from the rest when they are operationally intertwined? As raised during the Devex Pro Briefing, this creates impossible choices for organizations and undermines the effectiveness of their work. Consider these examples: A cash assistance program serves both conflict-affected frontline areas and more stable urban centers. Can it continue in one area but not the other? How are administrative costs divided? A health clinic provides both emergency medical care (clearly “life-saving”) and routine vaccinations (potentially not covered). Can it continue to operate? A shelter program also offers psychosocial support and legal aid. Which components are deemed “life-saving,” and which are not?
  • The Burden of Proof: The waiver places the burden of proof on organizations to demonstrate that their programs qualify as “life-saving.” This requires extensive documentation and justification, adding to the administrative burden during a time of crisis. Furthermore, it is unclear what evidence will be deemed sufficient, and how long the approval process will take.
  • Long-Term Uncertainty: The “temporary” nature of the waiver, coupled with the prohibition on new contracts, creates immense long-term uncertainty. Organizations are unable to plan for the future, recruit or retain staff, or make commitments to partners and beneficiaries. Adding to the confusion are unconfirmed rumors that the World Food Programme (WFP) may have secured a waiver for its food assistance programs. However, it remains unclear whether this is a full waiver, applies globally, or is limited to specific projects or in-kind donations. It is also unclear how this waiver, if it exists, was negotiated and obtained. This information is crucial for other organizations seeking similar exemptions.

The Food Assistance Example: A Microcosm of the Problem

The initial exemption for “emergency food assistance” in the original Executive Order, discussed in my previous analyses, provides a stark example of the waiver’s limitations. By Monday, just days after the order, organizations were already pausing food programs. Why? Because even this seemingly straightforward exemption lacked clear definitions.

  • Does subsidizing bakeries in Syria to ensure bread availability count as “emergency food assistance,” even though it involves supporting a market system?
  • Are winter cash grants, specifically intended to help families purchase food and heating supplies, covered?
  • What about programs that combine food distribution with nutrition education or agricultural support?
  • What about cash programs that have a food security objective?

These are just a few of the questions that arose, highlighting the practical difficulties of implementing a vaguely worded waiver in the complex reality of humanitarian operations.

The Path Forward: Navigating an Impossible Landscape

The January 28th directive from USAID’s OAA Director, while offering a semblance of process, effectively throws humanitarian and development organizations into an impossible situation. The promise of “imminent” formal notifications from COs/AOs offers little solace, as these notifications are contingent upon clear criteria that are yet conspicuously absent. Without defined terms for “life-saving assistance” and other critical elements of the humanitarian waiver, even the most urgent programs remain in limbo, suspended between the need to act and the fear of acting incorrectly.

The Impossible Choices

This bureaucratic paralysis forces organizations to make impossible choices, each with potentially devastating consequences:

  1. Wait for Clarity, Risking Lives: Organizations can choose to adhere strictly to the “pause” order, suspending all activities until they receive explicit guidance from their CO/AOs. This option prioritizes compliance but comes at the cost of inaction. Every day of delay means more lives at risk, more suffering, and a deepening of the humanitarian crisis. As highlighted during the Devex Pro Briefing, the situation on the ground is rapidly deteriorating, and further delays could have irreversible consequences. While programs are suspended, those staff who have not yet been let go spend their time trying to find ways to justify their existence and advocate for the resumption of their programs.
  2. Risk Action, Risking Reprisal: Alternatively, organizations can attempt to interpret the vague language of the waiver themselves, resuming activities they deem “life-saving” in the hope that they will eventually be deemed compliant. This option prioritizes immediate humanitarian needs but carries significant risks. If the administration later determines that an organization’s interpretation was incorrect, the organization could face severe financial penalties, legal action, or even permanent debarment from U.S. government funding. As legal experts on the Devex call emphasized, the financial and legal implications of misinterpreting the order are too serious to ignore.
  3. Dismantle Integrated Programs, Risking Effectiveness: Organizations can attempt to dissect their integrated programs, separating out components that might be considered “life-saving” under the narrowest possible interpretation. This approach, while seemingly pragmatic, undermines the very principles of effective humanitarian response. As discussed in the Devex Briefing, modern humanitarian programs are designed to be holistic, recognizing that needs are interconnected. Dismantling these programs not only reduces their effectiveness but also creates operational nightmares and potentially irreparable damage to carefully built partnerships and systems.

What We Need: A Call for Clarity, Action, and Protection

The current situation, characterized by a vague waiver and a self-executing stop-work order, is untenable. To prevent further harm and enable the resumption of vital humanitarian work, we urgently need:

  1. Clear, Operational Definitions: The administration must immediately provide clear, operational definitions of “life-saving humanitarian assistance,” “reasonable administrative costs,” and other key terms used in the waiver and related directives. These definitions must not be crafted in a vacuum; they require consultation with humanitarian experts who understand the realities of on-the-ground operations. Vague terms only serve to create paralysis and confusion, ultimately harming those in need.
  2. A Streamlined and Transparent Waiver Process: A rapid, efficient, and transparent process for determining which programs qualify under the humanitarian waiver is essential. This process must be clearly communicated to all stakeholders, with clear criteria, timelines, and points of contact. Organizations need to know, definitively, whether their programs can continue and how to apply for waivers if necessary. The current opaque and uncertain process is unacceptable. There are also rumors of a potential waiver for the WFP, but no details on this have been shared.
  3. Explicit Authorization and Empowerment of COs/AOs: USAID Contracting Officers and Agreement Officers (COs/AOs) must be explicitly authorized and empowered to issue notifications based on the clarified definitions. They need clear guidance from above to make decisions quickly and confidently, allowing organizations to resume critical work without fear of reprisal. This requires a clear delegation of authority and a system that prioritizes rapid response over bureaucratic hurdles.
  4. Protection from Liability: Organizations making good-faith efforts to interpret and comply with the waiver’s vague terms, particularly in the absence of clear guidance, must be protected from liability. The current climate of fear and uncertainty is hindering action and must be addressed. The administration must acknowledge the impossible situation faced by organizations and provide assurances that good-faith efforts to save lives will not be penalized.

Until these steps are taken, the humanitarian sector remains in a state of suspended animation, unable to fully respond to the growing global crisis. The most vulnerable populations, those who rely on these programs for their very survival, will pay the ultimate price for this bureaucratic paralysis and ideologically driven policy.

Here’s what we must do:

Demand Clarity and Accountability

  • Pressure the U.S. Administration: We need immediate, clear, and operational definitions for the humanitarian waiver. Organizations need to know, unequivocally, which programs can continue and which must remain suspended. If you are an American, contact your elected officials, particularly those on the Appropriations and Foreign Relations Committees. Demand that they hold the administration accountable for the consequences of this freeze and push for a swift resolution.
  • Urge Transparency: The process for obtaining waivers must be transparent, efficient, and accessible to all organizations, regardless of size or influence. The administration must also provide clear guidance on how it will review programs and determine their alignment with the new priorities.

Amplify the Human Impact

  • Document and Share: Organizations on the ground must meticulously document the real-world consequences of this freeze. Collect data on program suspensions, staff layoffs, and, most importantly, the impact on beneficiaries. Share these stories widely, using the hashtags #FundUSAID, #HumanitarianCrisis, #AidFreeze. We must put a human face on this crisis and make the suffering visible.
  • Give voice to the voiceless: If you have contacts in affected communities, encourage them to share their experiences. Their stories are powerful tools for advocacy and change.

Support Each Other

  • Collaborate and Share Resources: Now, more than ever, organizations must work together. Share information, best practices, and resources. Offer support to smaller organizations and local partners who are disproportionately affected by this freeze. The international community must also step up to fill the void left by the US.
  • Protect Staff: Implementing partners should prioritize the well-being of their staff. This includes providing clear communication about the evolving situation, offering psychological support, and ensuring fair treatment in any unavoidable staff reductions. The sector as a whole must also advocate for policies that protect aid workers and ensure their safety and security in increasingly challenging environments.

If You Are an Implementing Partner:

  • Prioritize Communication and Transparency with Affected Populations: Do not wait for perfect clarity. Inform affected populations immediately about the funding freeze and its potential impact on program activities. Explain the reasons for any suspensions or changes to services, acknowledging the uncertainty and the organization’s efforts to seek resolution. Transparency, even in the absence of definitive answers, is crucial for maintaining trust and managing expectations. The more open and honest you are, the more understanding they will likely be. Provide communities with clear channels for feedback, questions, and concerns. And finally manage expectations, Be realistic about the potential for program resumptions or modifications. Avoid making promises that you may not be able to keep.
  • Continue to document: Keep meticulous records of every communication, every decision, and every consequence related to the freeze. This documentation will be crucial for any future legal challenges, funding appeals, or advocacy efforts.
  • Engage with your CO/AO: Maintain open communication with your USAID Contracting or Agreement Officer, even if they cannot provide definitive answers. Seek clarification whenever possible and document all interactions.
  • Protect your staff: Prioritize the well-being and safety of your staff, both international and local. Be transparent about the challenges and provide support where possible. The coming weeks and months will be critical.

Conclusion: A Defining Moment for Global Action

The coming weeks and months will be critical. The choices we make now will determine the fate of countless lives and shape the future of humanitarian action. We must choose to stand together, to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, and to build a more just and equitable world. Let us transform this moment of crisis into a catalyst for lasting change.

Let your voice be heard. The time to act is now.

#FundUSAID #HumanitarianCrisis #AidFreeze #DefendAid #Devex #GlobalDevelopment #StandWithHumanity