‘I Want Women and Girls to Know They Are Not Alone’: Susan Reichle on the Fallout of USAID’s Funding Freeze

Sarah Little of More to Her Story sits down with Susan Reichle, former Counselor to USAID and the agency’s highest-ranking Foreign Service Officer, to discuss the impact of the U.S. funding freeze and what it means for women and girls around the world.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Sarah Little:
Susan, as you know, women and girls all over the world are following and reading the stories that More to Her Story is publishing. I hope that in this interview, you can speak directly to them—helping us all make sense of what's happening, what it means, what it doesn’t mean, and where we should be focusing our energy and attention right now.

You’ve spent many years in leadership positions at USAID, both overseas and in Washington. You’ve seen transition cycles before—cuts in funding, shifts in priorities. Based on your experience leading major USAID programs through these periods, help us get some perspective. What’s the best-case scenario here, and what’s the worst?

Susan Reichle: 

First, thank you, Sarah, for having me on More to Her Story. I have been following your work with deep admiration. To all the women and girls who connect with your platform daily, I want to share my heartfelt gratitude—you are the ones who inspire me every day. With over 35 years in development, I can confidently say this is an unprecedented time. That phrase is often overused, but in this case, it’s true. Having served under five presidents, including the beginning of President Trump’s first administration, I can assure you this transition is unlike any other.

Unfortunately, there was not enough preparation to prevent the devastation caused by the Trump administration’s executive orders—particularly the one targeting foreign assistance. This order created a stop-work mandate, effectively halting all USAID-funded programs worldwide as of January 24th. What we are witnessing now is chaos, confusion, and, tragically, lives being lost. 

Reports from across the globe indicate that vital programs have shut down, leaving people without access to food, humanitarian aid, and protection. Additionally, the suspension of funding for HIV prevention and treatment has had catastrophic consequences, especially for women and girls around the world.

PEPFAR, the emergency plan initiated under President Bush, has saved 25 million lives. With the sudden halt of these programs, individuals who were receiving antiretroviral treatment are now left without it. We are seeing higher mother-to-child transmission rates and the resurgence of infections that had previously been controlled. And that is just one example. Over the past five weeks, we have witnessed widespread destruction, not only of lives but also of critical infrastructure that supports global development and security.

This crisis is not just humanitarian—it also poses a serious risk to national security, given that USAID is a crucial pillar of the three D’s: defense, diplomacy, and development.

Sarah Little:
When funding suddenly disappears, what do organizations on the ground actually do? Are there strategies that have worked in the past to keep these critical services running—especially for women and girls?

Susan Reichle:
In the past, organizations have tried to sustain programs through diversified funding sources. We always urge partners, from community-based organizations to large implementing agencies, not to rely on a single funding stream. But, as you know, that is incredibly difficult—especially in fragile states. In conflict zones and areas controlled by armed groups, foreign direct investment is nonexistent, and donor funding is often the only support available. If a government is not stable or functioning, it cannot step in to fill the gap. Other donors have also reduced funding over the years, making alternative sources even scarcer.

Unlike past funding cuts that allowed time for phased program closures and sustainability planning, this time was different. The funding halt was abrupt, and, shockingly, organizations are still owed payments from December and January. This failure is pushing both local and international organizations into bankruptcy, dismantling the global development infrastructure.

Sarah Little:
Do you see national governments stepping in to fill this gap, or will this just deepen their dependence on international aid?

Susan Reichle:
It varies from country to country. But in many countries, governments won’t be able to step in. They don’t have the necessary funding built into their budgets. Having worked overseas for most of my career, I know that it takes years—at the federal, state, or local level—for governments to allocate funding for these kinds of services. 

My biggest concern at this moment is the dismantling of the U.S. government’s humanitarian response infrastructure. USAID has long been a critical player in disaster relief efforts, responding to protracted conflicts in places like Sudan and conflict zones around the world. That entire system is now being destroyed. 

If a major disaster were to strike tomorrow, the U.S. would not be able to deploy aid and relief efforts in the way it has in the past. That’s a terrifying reality. The ability to provide immediate life-saving assistance—search and rescue operations, access to clean water, shelter, food—is being destroyed.

Sarah Little:
USAID has been a major funder of programs that help prevent and respond to gender-based violence around the world. What happens to these efforts now?

Susan Reichle:
Honestly, this is one of the most devastating consequences of the funding freeze.

I remember back in the 1990s when gender-based violence (GBV) was first gaining recognition as a critical issue in development. At the time, there were questions: Could we really make a difference? Is this an area where development efforts could be effective? Do we have proven strategies and evidence? Flash forward 30 years, and we do. We know the difference that intervention can make—on everything from protection to survivor support.

I categorize this as one of the most critical programs for the most vulnerable populations. And I’m hopeful that, as a global community, more funders will step forward, saying, We’re a fund focused on women and girls. We’re a fund specifically committed to GBV prevention and response.

Sarah Little:
A huge number of girls’ education programs also depend on USAID support. What are the real risks here? Are we talking about thousands, maybe millions, of girls being forced out of school? And who, if anyone, can step in to keep these programs running?

Susan Reichle:
Sadly, yes—we’re talking about millions of girls losing access to education. And the implications of that are massive, not just for those girls but for entire communities and economies.

Education has always been at the core of international development. If you look at the foundation of USAID, going back to the 1960s when President Kennedy established the agency, education was one of the pillars. That same year, he also created the Peace Corps, which played a crucial role in expanding education initiatives worldwide.

Now, with this freeze, we’re seeing the potential collapse of major education organizations. Implementing partners like the Research Triangle Institute and the Education Development Center—organizations that have led groundbreaking work in education—are on the verge of bankruptcy. If they disappear, we’re not just losing funding; we’re losing the infrastructure, expertise, and networks that make these programs work.

This is where innovation and resilience will be critical. During my time at the International Youth Foundation, I saw how education programs adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We saw new models emerge—remote learning, community-led education, and technology-driven solutions.

I hope we’ll see that same kind of innovation now. But it will require urgent action. We need philanthropic organizations, individual donors, and multilateral institutions like the World Bank to step in and support these programs before they completely disappear.

Sarah Little:
The U.S. has long been a global leader in advancing women’s rights through development aid. Does this freeze, in your opinion, signal a retreat from that role?

Susan Reichle:

Yes. Even before the freeze, we were preparing for this because we understood that, particularly in the last year of the first Trump administration, there was a direct attack on our programs for women and girls—and really, on gender as a whole. 

This is not something that has ever been seen as questionable in the past—except for that last year of the Trump administration. Of course, if you’re going to be running development programs, you have to consider gender and development. As we know, that’s not just about women and girls—it’s about understanding the role of gender in society.

So, yes, this freeze does have consequences. But I have full confidence that this work will continue. Women and girls, as well as people working in the gender field, are incredibly resilient. We’ve been under attack many times before.

And it is obvious to most people working not just in development and diplomacy, but also in defense—as we’ve seen with the Women, Peace, and Security Act—that including women and girls is absolutely critical for our national security.

Sarah Little:
Susan, you’ve been in this world a long time. When something like this happens, what’s the real takeaway? Should this be a wake-up call for how international development is funded? And what’s the bigger question we should all be asking right now?

Susan Reichle:
That’s a great question, Sarah. And honestly, I’ve been thinking about this even before the freeze happened.

I’ve long believed that the current structure of international development isn’t equipped for today’s global challenges. The framework we operate under was largely built after World War II. And while that model served a purpose, it doesn’t fully address the complex, interconnected crises we face today—conflict, climate change, pandemics, mass displacement.

That is fundamentally important as we move ahead, though we are still in the middle of this disaster. And I refer to this as a disaster because it is—there is absolute chaos, and lives are being lost. And just as with any disaster around the world, we would normally mobilize. But also, as in any disaster response, we have to plan for the next stage, which I think is the premise of your question—what next? Where do we go from here?

The world, and most importantly, the United States, needs development as part of its national security toolkit. I know what is being proposed by the Trump administration at this point—to take an agency of 14,000 development professionals working across 90 countries, with partnerships in incredibly large sectors, and reduce it to about 600 people, folded into the State Department, managing what would likely be a very small budget.

Managing programs and budgets is not the entirety of development. That’s one piece of it, but development is a discipline. It is a sector. As you know, it includes experts in education, doctors, lawyers, people with actual expertise and experience in different areas overseas. That knowledge base is being lost.

So part of what we are trying to do right now is ensure we don’t lose that expertise entirely—because as a country, we are going to need it when we rebuild.

Sarah Little:
Final question: With everything happening, what’s giving you hope right now?

Susan Reichle:
What gives me hope every day is just talking to people like you and people who are out in different countries. Every morning when I wake up, I have Signal messages from across the globe—updates on what’s happening, how they’re trying to support communities, and what they’re doing to prepare.

The thing about the development community is that it’s very diverse. It’s spread wide across the globe, but at the same time, it’s also very close-knit. The people who go into this profession do so not only because they deeply care but because they truly believe they can make a difference in the world. And I see that every day.

Development is about human connection, human development, and solving problems. And that’s what I see happening every day. I jump into the day, go into back-to-back meetings, and see people helping to solve problems and move forward.

I know we will get through this. But most importantly, we need to do it in a way that ensures, especially for women and girls, that they know they are not alone. There are so many people fighting for them and working to make sure we do everything possible to connect them and their communities to the resources they deserve.

Because we know that when they have the resources and the support, they are the future for their countries and their communities.