What USAID cuts mean for youth development — and what the world must do next

Global development finance faces mounting strain. The US has withdrawn funding and laid off staff at USAID, while countries like the UK have reduced their Official Development Assistance (ODA).

A 2023 Social Return on Investment study found that investments in youth programming yield long-term dividends across peacebuilding, civic participation and economic resilience, demonstrating that cuts not only undermine individual opportunity but jeopardize collective progress.

Amid growing concerns about how these development funding cuts will impact millions of lives in the Global South, one critical impact remains under-discussed: how these shifts are affecting, or will affect, youth-focused interventions and youth-led development.

Young people are at the forefront of addressing today's global challenges. Yet, meaningful youth engagement demands more than rhetoric — it requires sustained investment, platforms for leadership and access to resources.

Global development assistance cuts — especially from important donors like the US and the UK — can halt or reverse gains in youth development.

Between Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and FY 2020, USAID invested approximately $1.56 billion in youth development globally, including through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). In FY 2020, youth-focused allocations reached $412 million — a 134% increase from FY 2013. These investments yielded tangible results: 1.4 million youth were trained in leadership and life skills such as communication, critical thinking, decision-making and teamwork. Also, nearly 1 million secondary and tertiary school-aged learners gained access to education and 1.2 million young people received antiretroviral treatment for HIV.

In FY 2021, USAID trained 436,744 youth in life skills, and 71% of those trained participated in civil society activities, demonstrating long-term civic engagement and systemic impact. Moreover, from FY 2016 to 2020, 76% of youth trained in life skills engaged in civil society activities. Annette, a 27-year-old from Uganda, is one example of how a young woman gained confidence, along with a flourishing business, through a USAID-backed youth organization. Additionally, 37 youth-related policies, laws and procedures were adopted by various stakeholders to promote youth participation at the regional, national and local levels, with the support of USAID. Programmes like Global LEAD and YouthPower served as global knowledge hubs for cross-sectoral youth development, providing resources for youth leaders and youth-serving development practitioners.

In the absence of funding, the youth development sector is likely to experience the following:

Fewer youth in training: The termination of some previously funded youth workforce development programmes results in disruptions to skills training for some youth, and fewer young people are gaining access to essential life skills training, thereby putting their transition into employment and civic life at risk.

Reduced civic engagement: As training programmes end in some contexts, the ripple effects may include declining youth participation in civil society activities, threatening progress in youth civic leadership and community engagement.

Increased youth unemployment: Amid the closure of some USAID-funded youth workforce initiatives, some young people will lose opportunities to acquire essential life and technical skills. This skills gap can increase their vulnerability to unemployment, particularly in countries already struggling to create decent jobs. Unemployment also threatens economic growth, widens inequality and can contribute to social instability, especially in already fragile economies.

Health setbacks: Over 1.2 million youth receiving HIV treatment through PEPFAR could face service disruptions. Development funding cuts are also projected to lead to 34,000 additional pregnancy-related deaths within a year, highlighting the broader risks to youth and maternal health.

Weakening civil society: Legal aid, protection for young human rights defenders and civic engagement programmes are increasingly vulnerable.

Knowledge loss: With platforms like YouthLead being inaccessible and the Demographic and Health Surveys Program’s termination, the field has lost critical global hubs that housed decades of research, tools and investment in youth development. Their absence slows innovation, limits knowledge sharing and weakens the ecosystem for evidence-based, cross-sectoral Positive Youth Development (PYD) programming.

Global South governments must integrate youth into national strategies, not as symbolic actors, but as budgeted stakeholders. This includes allocating national resources to youth mental health, education and employment, as well as creating formal youth advisory roles in policymaking.

The void left by the US and UK development funding cuts is too significant for domestic systems alone. The EU, Canada, Sweden, Norway and other countries can step in. Multilateral platforms like the G20, COP summits and the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development could also prioritize youth participation and financing.

Youth issues are interconnected with climate, education, food security, public health and democracy. Youth mainstreaming and cross-sectoral collaboration ensure that youth have a collective voice, and local and national systems support them through well-coordinated and cost-effective services across relevant sectors.

Contributors to this LinkedIn discussion highlighted the potential of crowdfunding, community-based giving and public-private partnerships as flexible, long-term financing options to bridge funding gaps. The private sector can invest in youth-led innovation and social enterprise models.

Partners and policymakers must invest in institutions that support youth, including networks, civil society infrastructure and leadership pipelines. Building youth capacity in project design, advocacy and resource mobilization is crucial for the long-term sustainability of youth-led development and innovation.

Educated, skilled young people who are confident about their place in the world and the opportunities open to them will drive economic growth, decrease inequalities and build more resilient societies.

Reduced development assistance does not have to mean reduced ambition. However, to maintain momentum towards the SDGs and other global and national development agendas, we must ensure that young people are not left to carry the burden of shrinking budgets alone. The world cannot afford to waste the energy, innovation and leadership of the 2.4 billion youth worldwide.

Disclaimer: The views in this article are those of the authors and are based on personal experience and prior research. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the organization with which the author is affiliated.