Multilateral development banks now account for 56% of net development finance flows, up from just 28% a decade ago — a structural shift driven by the largest bilateral aid contraction in 30 years. The United States dismantled USAID in 2025, cancelling 83% of programs (approximately 5,200 contracts and grants). The United Kingdom cut aid by 27% between 2024 and 2026 — exceeding the US reduction of 23% over the same period. Global ODA peaked at $250.3 billion in 2023, then fell for the first time in six years as all five major donors reduced contributions simultaneously. For companies competing for international tenders, the procurement landscape has fundamentally reordered: the bilateral funding that once sustained thousands of development contracts is contracting, while MDB pipelines — the AfDB's record $11 billion replenishment, ADB's $36 billion expanded lending capacity — are expanding.
The Scale of the Cuts
A landmark study published in The Lancet by researchers at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal), funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, has put numbers to what the development community has been fearing. Analyzing data from 93 low- and middle-income countries home to 6.3 billion people, the study projects that current aid reductions will cause between 9.4 million and 22.6 million additional deaths by 2030, depending on the severity of defunding. Under the mild scenario — a 10.6% reduction in official development assistance — 9.4 million people die who would not have otherwise, including 2.5 million children under five. Under the severe scenario, 22.6 million die, including 5.4 million children.
These are not abstract projections. Between 2002 and 2021, international aid reduced child mortality by 39%, prevented 70% of HIV/AIDS deaths, and cut malaria and nutritional deficiency deaths by 56%. The infrastructure of prevention and treatment built over two decades is now being dismantled faster than alternative systems can replace it.
The numbers behind the cuts are stark. In 2023, global official development assistance reached an all-time peak of $250.3 billion. In 2024, for the first time in 30 years, all five of the world's largest donors — France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States — reduced their contributions simultaneously, except Japan. It was the first overall decrease in international aid in six years.
USAID: One Year After the Shutdown
The most visible symbol of the aid contraction is the closure of the United States Agency for International Development. In early 2025, the Trump administration cancelled approximately 83% of USAID's programs, representing some 5,200 contracts and grants. On July 1, 2025, the agency officially closed its doors. The workforce was reduced by an estimated 97%, from thousands of employees and contractors to a skeleton operation absorbed by the State Department.
The consequences for the contractor and NGO ecosystem have been severe. By April 2025, 81 international NGOs had closed at least one country office. World Vision lost 10% of its budget and laid off up to 3,000 employees, cutting HIV/AIDS and child health programs. Search for Common Ground lost $23 million overnight — a 40% reduction in its conflict resolution work. Freedom House terminated 80% of its activities. Save the Children US saw one-third of its funding frozen.
The International Rescue Committee reported that over 6 million of its clients experienced service interruptions, with 2 million losing services entirely. Health clinics, nutrition programs, schools, and protection services closed across Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, and Afghanistan.
For procurement professionals, the USAID shutdown eliminated one of the world's largest sources of development contracts overnight. The State Department, which absorbed USAID's remaining functions, lacks the contracting infrastructure, procurement systems, and technical expertise that USAID had built over decades. Award modifications, budget reallocations, and performance monitoring that previously flowed through established systems must now be rebuilt from scratch.
The US 2026 Foreign Aid Package
Congress partially stemmed the bleeding with the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bill, which restored approximately $15 billion in previously proposed cuts to global health, multilateral, humanitarian, and bilateral economic assistance. The bill allocates $9.5 billion for global health activities at the State Department — $5.9 billion for programs historically at State and $3.6 billion for programs transferred from the shuttered USAID.
The legislation formally codifies USAID's closure. But it also reveals the administration's strategic reorientation of foreign assistance. Security assistance has expanded substantially: Foreign Military Financing received $6 billion, including $3.3 billion expedited for Israel. Overall international security assistance totals $8.9 billion. The Countering PRC Influence Fund is fully funded at $400 million, with $1.8 billion allocated for US national security interests in the Indo-Pacific.
Development-focused funding tells a different story. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria — once funded at $15.7 billion in its 2022 cycle — received $1.5 billion for 2026, a 9% cut from the prior year. Funding for the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) was eliminated entirely. Family planning and reproductive health programs were cut by 24%.
The message is clear: US foreign assistance in 2026 is a security instrument first, a development tool second. For contractors, this means the growth areas in US-funded procurement are defense, security, and counter-influence programs — not traditional development.
The United Kingdom Cuts Deeper
While international attention has focused on Washington, the United Kingdom has quietly become a more aggressive cutter. Between 2024 and 2026, UK aid reductions total 27% — exceeding the US reduction of 23% over the same period. This from a Labour government that came to power partly on promises to protect the international development budget.
A parliamentary inquiry has warned against further staff cuts at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), which manages UK aid. The UK will co-host an international development cooperation conference in May 2026, though critics question the credibility of hosting a development summit while cutting development budgets.
For companies that have traditionally competed for DFID and FCDO-funded contracts — particularly in consulting and technical assistance — the UK pipeline is contracting measurably. Fewer tenders, smaller budgets, and longer procurement timelines are becoming the norm.
Multilateral Banks: The New Center of Gravity
As bilateral donors retreat, multilateral development banks are filling the gap — and then some. The shift is structural, not temporary. MDBs now account for 56% of net development finance inflows, up from 28% a decade earlier. This is the most significant rebalancing of development finance architecture since the post-World War II era.
African Development Fund: Record $11 Billion
The African Development Fund (ADF), the concessional financing arm of the African Development Bank, secured a record $11 billion for its 17th replenishment — the largest in the Fund's history and a 23% increase over the previous cycle. For the first time, 23 African countries contributed to their own concessional financing window, pledging $182.7 million — a five-fold increase from the prior replenishment. The strategic priorities of ADF-17 focus on jobs, energy access, trade integration, debt sustainability, and institutional strengthening.
For companies pursuing infrastructure and energy tenders in Africa, the AfDB pipeline is expanding at precisely the moment bilateral alternatives are contracting.
ADB-World Bank Mutual Reliance Framework
The Asian Development Bank and the World Bank signed a Full Mutual Reliance Framework to streamline cofinanced public sector projects, reducing duplication in procurement oversight and accelerating project delivery. For bidders, this means fewer parallel procurement processes on jointly funded projects and faster timelines from approval to tender publication.
The China Factor
One of the most consequential shifts in development finance has received relatively little attention. China has moved from being a net provider of $48 billion in development finance between 2015 and 2019 to a net extractor of $24 billion between 2020 and 2024. Loan repayments from Belt and Road Initiative projects now exceed new disbursements in many countries. This reversal removes another major funding source from the pipeline and increases the relative importance of Western-backed multilateral institutions.
What This Means for Procurement
The aid reshaping is not a marginal adjustment. It is a fundamental reordering of who funds development and how. For companies competing for international tenders, the implications are concrete.
Funding Source Diversification Is Now Essential
Companies that built their business on USAID contracts or DFID/FCDO frameworks face an existential pipeline challenge. The bilateral funding that sustained thousands of consulting, supply, and works contracts is shrinking year over year. Firms that have not registered with multilateral development bank procurement systems — the World Bank, ADB, AfDB, IADB, EBRD, and AIIB — are competing for a declining share of a declining market.
Security and Stabilization Contracts Are Growing
The US reorientation toward security-first foreign assistance means the fastest-growing segment of US-funded procurement is in defense and security, counter-narcotics, counter-influence operations, and stabilization programs. Companies with security clearances and experience in conflict zones will find expanding opportunities, while traditional development consultancies face a narrower field.
Health Procurement Remains Resilient
Despite the cuts, Congress protected core global health funding. PEPFAR remains at $4.4 billion. Malaria funding increased slightly. Maternal and child health held steady. The Global Fund, while reduced, still commands $1.5 billion in annual US contributions alone. Health and medical tenders funded by multilateral health mechanisms will remain a substantial procurement category.
Africa Is the Procurement Growth Story
The AfDB's record replenishment, combined with African countries' unprecedented contributions to their own development financing, points to a continent where procurement opportunities are expanding even as global aid contracts. The ADF-17 priorities — energy, jobs, trade, and infrastructure — directly generate supply, works, and consulting contracts. Companies positioned in African markets will benefit disproportionately from this shift.
Localization Changes the Competitive Landscape
As international NGOs restructure, many are shifting decision-making and implementation to local partner organizations. Christian Aid closed its own offices in favor of local partners. Save the Children expanded coordination with MercyCorps and CARE. This localization trend means that international firms bidding on development contracts increasingly need local partners, local staff, and demonstrated local presence to remain competitive.
Regional Impact Assessment
The aid cuts are not felt uniformly. The regions most affected are those most dependent on bilateral US and UK funding.
Sub-Saharan Africa faces the deepest impact from USAID's closure, which disrupted education, health, water, and sanitation programs across the continent. The AfDB replenishment partially offsets this, but the transition period is creating gaps in service delivery and procurement continuity. Countries like Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ethiopia are among the most affected.
South and Southeast Asia are seeing a strategic shift as US funding reorients toward Indo-Pacific security. The $1.8 billion Indo-Pacific allocation and full funding of the Countering PRC Influence Fund signal growing procurement opportunities in defense, infrastructure, and digital governance across countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, and Indonesia.
Middle East and North Africa present a mixed picture. US funding for Gaza reconstruction ($10 billion committed, pending Congressional appropriation) could generate substantial works and supply contracts if realized. But the broader region faces reduced humanitarian funding as donor priorities shift.
Latin America and the Caribbean received EUR 123.3 million ($147 million) in EU humanitarian aid in February 2026, with the EU emphasizing the "critical importance" of its aid as the UN's 2026 target for the region was cut in half.
What Companies Should Do Now
The procurement landscape of 2026 bears little resemblance to 2024. Companies that adapt fastest will capture opportunities that slower competitors miss.
Register with every major MDB. If your firm is not already registered in the procurement databases of the World Bank, ADB, AfDB, IADB, EBRD, and AIIB, this should be an immediate priority. MDB procurement is where the growth is.
Monitor security and stabilization opportunities. If your capabilities extend to conflict zones, stabilization, or security sector reform, the US 2026 budget has created a growing funding stream in this category.
Build or strengthen local partnerships. The localization trend is accelerating. Joint ventures and subcontracting relationships with local firms in target countries are increasingly a prerequisite for competitive bids, not just a nice-to-have.
Track the AfDB pipeline closely. The ADF-17 replenishment will begin disbursing into new projects in 2026 and 2027. Early engagement with AfDB project preparation teams can position firms for upcoming tenders before they are published.
Diversify beyond traditional donors. The EU, Japan, and emerging donors like the Gulf states and South Korea are maintaining or increasing development spending. Companies overly dependent on US or UK funding need to diversify their donor portfolio.
Looking Ahead
The aid reshaping underway in 2026 is not a temporary disruption. It is a structural transformation of how the world finances development — and, consequently, where procurement opportunities originate. Bilateral aid from the two largest English-speaking donors is contracting sharply. Multilateral banks are expanding. Security is displacing development in the remaining bilateral budgets. And localization is changing who competes for and wins contracts on the ground.
For procurement professionals, the path forward is clear: follow the money. And in 2026, the money is increasingly flowing through multilateral channels, into security programs, and toward firms with local presence and MDB credentials.
---
Find Related Tenders on BidsFactory: