Just hours after being sworn into office for his second term as U.S. president on January 20, Donald Trump signed dozens of executive orders. The impact of these orders extended beyond the U.S., with some having immediate consequences worldwide.

Among them was an executive order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Assistance.” This order immediately suspended all U.S. foreign aid, mandating a 90-day review of U.S. foreign development assistance programs to determine whether they align with new U.S. foreign policy objectives.

This suspension includes programs under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which allocated billions of dollars for international development in recent years. For example, in 2022, U.S. foreign assistance exceeded $70 billion, with approximately $40 billion coming through USAID. In 2023, U.S. foreign assistance amounted to $68 billion dollars, while in 2024, it reached nearly $40 billion.

Another executive order Trump signed, this one titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” revokes and bans programs, activities and policies related to diversity, equity and inclusion.

On January 24, thousands of organizations, companies and institutions that implement U.S.-funded programs worldwide received notice to immediately suspend operations. These notices impacted programs in nearly 180 countries, with some of the recipients being Gaza, India, Bangladesh, Ukraine, South Sudan and the Western Balkans. The only exceptions were emergency food aid and military assistance to Egypt and Israel.

As the largest global donor of both development and humanitarian assistance, the suspension of U.S.-supported activities has immediately put thousands of programs on hold. These programs provide essential services to millions of people, ranging from medical care for refugees and mine clearance operations to education and infrastructure projects.

The biggest concern has been around USAID. The official USAID website has been inaccessible, with all official communications centralized in Washington, D.C.. Developments surrounding the agency are unfolding daily, it is unclear what exactly will happen. As a beneficiary of USAID, Kosovo has also been affected by these developments.

Impact on Kosovo

Since 1999, U.S. foreign assistance to Kosovo — primarily through USAID — has exceeded $1 billion and is estimated to have surpassed $500 million between 2020 and 2024 alone. Numerous institutions and organizations have benefited from U.S. foreign aid programs, spanning key sectors of social and economic development.

Currently in Kosovo, programs supported by USAID address a range of issues: private sector support, property rights, increased civic participation, civil society development, energy security, women’s economic inclusion, human rights and inter-ethnic coexistence.

From an administrative and organizational perspective, implementation of U.S. assistance programs in Kosovo has historically been led by companies and organizations from the U.S. and international level, with local organizations playing a more supportive role. In recent years, however, the number of local organizations assuming leadership responsibilities in implementing various programs has begun to increase, although their role remains relatively small.

Dozens of civil society organizations in Kosovo that previously received U.S. funding — now suspended — have been impacted, either as beneficiaries or subcontractors of foreign or large domestic companies and organizations. These organizations and companies employ hundreds of citizens in Kosovo.

Since January 24, the decisions — also the uncertainties that came with these decisions — have been handled by these organizations in different ways. Some organizations have chosen to immediately terminate staff contracts without waiting for the review process to be completed. Others have reassured their employees that contracts will remain unaffected, at least until the review is finalized.

The majority of organizations are still analyzing their options, facing a serious dilemma. Retaining staff while risking a possible refusal by the U.S. to cover salary costs during this period could expose them to a potentially fatal financial risk. Conversely, letting staff go would not only be ethically questionable but would also make it extremely difficult to resume programs if the review process leads to a positive outcome. 

Following a series of decisions by the Trump administration, USAID’s prospect of continuation appears even more challenging. The decisions are to suspend, place on administrative leave or even repatriate USAID employees — both at headquarters in Washington D.C. and across USAID missions worldwide.

While large organizations and companies may have some flexibility to navigate this uncertain situation, in Kosovo, the greatest risk falls on nongovernmental organizations. The vast majority of these organizations lack financial independence to cover such expenses.

It remains unclear whether, during this review period, basic administrative costs — such as salaries, rent and other essential expenses — will be allowed. These are impossible to halt immediately under normal circumstances. 

Recently, USAID suggested to its partners that some unavoidable expenses may still be covered. It is uncertain what will be classified as an unavoidable expense and how or when such decisions will be made.

Concerns about salaries and administrative costs for employees, in U.S. government-funded programs, may seem like minor issues affecting a small group of professionals focused on their own interests. However, these concerns are far from individual. 

Trump’s decisions have far-reaching collective implications. Above all, the inability to pay staff means that, for most organizations and companies, it becomes impossible to continue providing services to vulnerable groups, institutions and state processes. 

Failure to provide services has severe consequences for those who depend on these programs the most. The impact is felt not only during the suspension and review period, but also in the case of a partial resumption of funding — especially if the aid is completely cut off.

Another significant impact is the disruption or termination of the effective progress these programs have made in their respective sectors. Kosovo has long moved beyond the emergency phase, meaning there are no longer emergency or humanitarian aid programs. The impact hits the country’s development potential in areas such as the economy, governance and democratic progress.

While the debate on whether to allow salary payments during the review period is a major issue in itself, it may actually be the least concerning problem in the broader context of these developments.

Expected surprise and new global circumstances

The two executive orders have caused surprise and confusion among many individuals involved in or closely following the world of development assistance. Although discussions about the possible reorientation of foreign aid took place even before the U.S. elections, the speed in which Trump — within his first hours in office — implemented the executive orders came as a surprise, as did the decision’s radical nature, specifically, the immediate and arbitrary suspension of programs. 

More than anything, they have caused widespread confusion due to the lack of information on how events will unfold and what to expect for all those involved. However, within the broader context, these actions by the new U.S. administration should not have been entirely unexpected.

The executive orders align with Trump’s long-standing rhetoric and reveal his approach to power as he holds the most powerful office in the world. However, unlike in his first term, his actions are now further driven by a circle of official and unofficial advisors, whose impulsive behaviors are equally, if not more, extreme.

The snap decisions, often unilateral and lacking justification, continue to fuel a populist narrative that prioritizes maintaining electoral momentum among U.S. voters over any long-term international strategy. Beyond that, the temporary halt to foreign aid is just one link in a chain of recent actions by Trump, including measures — now paused — against allies and partners like Canada, Mexico and Colombia, as well as Denmark and Panama. 

Together, these moves reflect a broader agenda to reconfigure the U.S.’ global role. This shift is not exclusive to the U.S. but is part of a larger ideological trend that has been gaining traction worldwide — marked by the resurgence of nationalist, isolationist and reactionary ideologies. These movements pose a serious and unpredictable threat to the post-World War II liberal order, which has long sought to promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and international solidarity.

These nationalist, isolationist and reactionary ideologies perceive international relations as transactional rather than value-based engagements and view multilateralism and global cooperation with suspicion. At the very least, they are skeptical of global cooperation in areas like promoting democratic values, human rights, social equality and international solidarity, which they consider unnecessary, a threat to their national interests and a misuse of taxpayer money.

Moreover, most countries in the so-called Global North — used to describe the world’s most economically developed countries — are either discussing or have already decided to reduce their foreign aid budgets. These decisions come in response to domestic pressure from nationalist groups, leading to a narrower interpretation of national interests, primarily confined to state borders. As a result, many countries are scaling back or even discontinuing development aid to other nations.

Risking democracy

Such a reduction in international development assistance will inevitably weaken the institutions and platforms that have historically worked to reduce global inequalities. While in the U.S. it is presented under the pretext of financial savings and improving the efficiency of foreign aid, these supposed savings puts global democracy, which is already in decline, at risk.

Global and regional authoritarian regimes will find it much easier to exploit this vacuum and expand their political and economic influence. If the U.S. unilaterally abandons its role as the world’s biggest promoter of democracy, countries that rely on U.S. support will be forced to seek alternative partnerships. This could lead to a compromising of democratic principles in favor of economic or security agreements with less democratic actors.

This will undoubtedly affect Kosovo. Even if the impact is not immediate or internal, there is no doubt that there will be influence on the region, as well as European and global geopolitics overall, all of which have a direct impact on Kosovo’s development. 

Authoritarian regimes in the region will likely gain strength, increasing pressure on Kosovo, both in terms of statehood and democratic development. U.S. support has been vital for Kosovo, particularly from a political and security perspective. It remains to be seen how this reconfiguration of U.S. aid will affect Kosovo and to what extent.

Moreover, the space for dissent is virtually nonexistent. Unlike other decisions by this administration that may have faced resistance, there are no comparable opportunities to directly oppose these measures when it comes to foreign aid. Companies, nongovernmental organizations and governments in beneficiary countries are entirely dependent on the will of the U.S. administration, with no clear mechanism to negotiate or challenge the effects of a sudden suspension or termination of funds, whether temporary or permanent.

Meanwhile, despite the initial shock and uncertainty felt by countries, institutions and organizations that still believe in international solidarity and democratic values, it is unlikely that these developments will pass without a counter-reaction. While development aid is just one aspect of the issue, the central focus of any response should be the protection of democratic values and international solidarity as a whole. These shifts will also have an impact on Kosovo.

The road ahead

Kosovo aspires to build a democratic society, but its democratic development remains highly complex, caught between an authentic democratic culture and a democracy shaped by the international community. The widespread social resistance and the parallel system of the 1990s laid a strong foundation for civic engagement, fostering a democratic culture that is atypical for the region, where most countries share a communist past.

This culture served as a foundation for social, political and economic revival after the 1998-99 war. However, the international community took on the leading role in the creation and development of institutions and democratic governance.

The leading role was achieved through extensive support for institution-building, civil society development and media strengthening. The dualism between domestic democratic traditions and international influence has shaped a unique model of democracy-building. As a result, Kosovo remains one of the few countries in the region and beyond that has not drifted toward authoritarianism but continues to uphold key components of a functional democratic society.

However, the eventual withdrawal of such an important partner in the area of state building and democracy will create a significant vacuum — one that can only be filled by Kosovo’s citizens and institutions taking greater ownership and responsibility for their democracy. The time to act was yesterday. The current freeze in U.S. support and the global decline in development assistance are clear signals of the dire need for increased local ownership and independence — a necessity that extends far beyond financial considerations.

Despite being a small country, with an economy that is not fully consolidated and statehood that remains contested, democracy is Kosovo’s competitive advantage in an increasingly authoritarian region and world. This reality must be understood by everyone involved in governance, civil society, the media and the private sector, regardless of daily political or economic agendas, which may at times conflict with the broader need for democratic practices.

For this reason, the first and most pressing priority must be to avoid exploiting the recent dramatic developments to further undermine Kosovo’s fragile democracy for the sake of short term political or economic gains. Instead, what is needed is greater state building maturity from all stakeholders to navigate and overcome this serious common challenge.

Equally urgent, though more long-term in scope, is the need to prioritize the identification and utilization of domestic capacities for democratic development, relying on local actors and institutions. Not everything needs to start from scratch, as civil society organizations, media, businesses, civil servants and politicians have already been engaged in initiatives that contribute to this effort for years. Additionally, there are still foreign donors committed to supporting democracy worldwide, who remain ready to assist in this transition.

While the agenda for local democratic development requires a broader discussion, some key goals that are within our control, and can be achieved relatively quickly, include urgently improving the landscape for local and diaspora philanthropy, protecting and expanding the space for civic engagement, establishing systematic and independent public financing for civil society, media and democratic development and significantly strengthening citizen engagement practices within civil society and the media outlets.

Unfortunately, existing initiatives are insufficient in both number and scope, and they lack support from most local institutions and actors. While the current situation is dramatic in terms of its potential consequences, it also presents a unique opportunity to reaffirm Kosovo’s leadership in its own democratic development.

Feature Image: Atdhe Mulla / K2.0

Want to support our journalism? Become a member of HIVE or consider making a donation. Learn more here.