Reporting Unsupported? Exploring the Effects of USAID Cuts on Media Work in Africa
New
Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) (2026), 15 pp.
Series: Policy Insights, 173
"The closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has had far-reaching effects across a range of humanitarian and development activities. This report examines the current and likely future effects of the agency’s closure on journalism in Africa. It has a particular focus on reporting in authoritarian contexts and on the case of South Sudan as one of the major historical recipients of USAID-funded media assistance. The report argues that the short-term implications for the operation of funding-dependent newsrooms have been catastrophic. Evidence suggests that alternative funders are unwilling or unable to fill the financial gap that USAID has left behind and that we are seeing an increasing degradation in the capacity both of newsrooms and of the broader civil society ecosystems that protected their work. The likely longer-term effects include increasing risks of state pressure on journalistic autonomy, increasing commercial rather than public service reporting and the juniorisation and deprofessionalisation of newsrooms." (Abstract)
"Internews deserves particular mention, as it was one of the largest news media support organisations working across the continent on projects focused on supporting news reporting, both directly and in helping to develop a supportive ecosystem for journalism more generally. According to federal spending records for the 2025 financial year, Internews’s US office was due to receive over $33 million in USAID funding for various projects. These ranged from improving access to humanitarian news and information in South Sudan to developing journalism and supporting media operations in Liberia and Uganda. In contrast to its European arm, USAID funding for Internews had been a major source of revenue for the organisation’s US section. The effects of USAID’s withdrawal were swift and devastating, with hundreds of staff layoffs and the abrupt ending of projects. The effects have also percolated downstream to local non-governmental organisation partners in various countries and, ultimately, newsrooms on the continent that Internews had been supporting. As described by Rafiq Copeland, a senior technical advisor at Internews, the end of funding was abrupt and initially uncertain, until the full scale of what was happening emerged: "You know, initially the aid was suspended, and that was kind of unclear whether that meant just that new funds wouldn’t be dispersed, or kind of what was going on, and then we were told that we had to actually suspend our programming, even with funds that had been dispersed, so everybody had to just down tools, and then, within a couple of weeks, it was sort of clear that it was, it was all over."
In Internews’s case, while its US section and the projects it supported were devastated, its European section – which was not dependent on USAID funding – was largely left unscathed by the end of the funding. As a result, the organisation as a whole has been able to continue certain projects, such as the Earth Journalism Network, which focuses on environmental journalism, even as most of its global projects have collapsed. Internews’s experience reveals that while certain media projects funded by alternative donors, such as private philanthropy and the EU, continue, the massive dependence on USAID funding for media development work in Africa and worldwide has caused enormous damage. Like most major organisations affected by the cuts, Internews has been unable to source replacement funding anywhere near the amount required to fill the gap left by USAID. This is, firstly, because the scale of the funding gap created by USAID’s closure is too large for other donors to fill. Secondly, many donors are likely waiting to see how the landscape shifts in the coming months before deciding which partners might be viable funding recipients in the new environment." (Pages 9-10)
In Internews’s case, while its US section and the projects it supported were devastated, its European section – which was not dependent on USAID funding – was largely left unscathed by the end of the funding. As a result, the organisation as a whole has been able to continue certain projects, such as the Earth Journalism Network, which focuses on environmental journalism, even as most of its global projects have collapsed. Internews’s experience reveals that while certain media projects funded by alternative donors, such as private philanthropy and the EU, continue, the massive dependence on USAID funding for media development work in Africa and worldwide has caused enormous damage. Like most major organisations affected by the cuts, Internews has been unable to source replacement funding anywhere near the amount required to fill the gap left by USAID. This is, firstly, because the scale of the funding gap created by USAID’s closure is too large for other donors to fill. Secondly, many donors are likely waiting to see how the landscape shifts in the coming months before deciding which partners might be viable funding recipients in the new environment." (Pages 9-10)
The value of media and journalism funding -- The structure of this report -- The case of Internews -- Adaptation by news organisations -- Discussion -- Recommendations
