April 15, 2025 • 29 mins
Within hours of the new administration’s return-to-office, disorder took over. A foreign aid freeze, a stop-work order, and the dismantling of key foreign aid institutions commenced almost immediately. Gayatri Patel, Senior Fellow with rePROs Fight Back, sits down to talk with us about glimmers of hope for protecting this foreign assistance funding and relevant agencies, as well as how we can prepare for the realistic, long-term impacts of these attacks.
The assault on foreign assistance funding by the new administration—which includes the blocking of U.S. foreign assistance funding, including for development programs, humanitarian programs, and multilateral assistance—has led to the loss of food services, antiviral medications, and vaccines, among other things. This has resulted in severe harm and death. In addition, the dismantling of institutions, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the loss of funding and support for multiple UN agencies, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), will result in continued, long-term impacts on both U.S. and international programming.
For more information, check out Aborsh: https://www.aborsh.com/
Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social
Email us: jennie@reprosfightback.com
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast
Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Welcome to Repro Fight Back a podcast on all
things related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice. Hey, re pros. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Wetter , and my pronounsare she her. So y'all , um,
maybe just a little bit ofhousekeeping before we get
started. I feel like it's beena little minute since I have
(00:26):
done anything about donating.
So just gonna like slap alittle promo here at the top.
If you love the podcast, pleasefeel free to support us. You
can write and review us on yourfavorite podcast platform, but
you can also donate to us onour website at re pros fight
back.com . And if you get , ifyou donate, we also have fun
(00:47):
giveaways for if you donate. Wehave these really fun stickers
that we had, liberal Janedesign and a fun postcard. And
so for a $25 donation, you willget a full set of stickers plus
the postcard. And we also havea really fun bag that I just
love y'all. We have this reallycute design that is done like a
(01:08):
comic book speech bubble thatsays abortion is a human right,
not a dirty word. I really loveit and I love the bag. It's
like really fun and brightpuppy colors. Um, so for a $50
donation, you get the bag andall of the stickers we have. So
if you support us and wannasend us some love, we would
really appreciate that. And Iguess while I'm talking about
(01:30):
like our fun swag we have, wehave also been considering
maybe opening, like gettingmerch where you could buy these
fun designs on, on differentthings. So would that be
something y'all be interestedin? Like, would you want us to
get a little merch store whereyou could get some of these fun
designs on a mug or a stickeror, I don't know, we let us
(01:55):
know if you're interested. Ifyou also, if you have things
you would like, like did youwant a mug, do you want a water
bottle? What would you beinterested in? Uh, so just send
us a note. I'd love to knowone, if you would be interested
in buying merch, but two, ifthere are things that you would
like to see designs on, justlet us know. And with that, I,
(02:18):
I actually think I'm gonna keepthe intro a little short this
week. I, I have some fun thingshappening, but I'm not quite
ready to tell y'all yet. You'llfind out I think next week, but
until then, it makes it alittle hard for me to talk
about the things that arehappening. So instead of
teasing y'all, I'm just gonnago cut straight to this week's
episode. I'm very excited aboutit. We have our wonderful
(02:42):
senior fellow Gare Patel totalk about what is happening
around foreign assistance rightnow, particularly in
humanitarian settings. It'sbeen a while since we talked
about what was going on withU-S-A-I-D, so it felt like a
really important time to catcheverybody up on what is
happening. So with that, let'sgo to my interview with gare .
(03:02):
Hi Gare . Thank you so much forbeing here today.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Hey, Jenny , it's so great to be back.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
I'm always excited to have you on. Um, but before
we like jump into theconversation, do you wanna take
a minute and introduce yourselfand include your pronouns?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Sure. My name is Gare Patel. She, her pronouns.
I am , um, professional in theglobal development gender
equality, SRHR world. Um, and Ihave been a , a fellow with the
repro fight back work for overa year now. So really excited
(03:37):
to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
So excited to have you and it , we've now been ,
uh, under the newadministration for a couple
months and there's been so muchhappening around foreign
assistance. I thought it waslike a good time to like check
back in and talk about whereare we at? Like what is
happening right now?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
I mean, it
changes every day , right?
Speaker 1 (04:02):
No small question.
Right?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
So it feels like it changes every day and it , it ,
it gets worse and worse for,for the development in
humanitarian aid sectors. But Ithink overall we, we have
blocking of US foreignassistance funding, including
for development programs,humanitarian programs,
multilateral assistance, etcetera . We have dismantling of
(04:26):
institutions, primarilyU-S-A-I-D , the US Agency for
International Development. We,we have, you know, some
glimmers of hope in terms ofsome of these decisions are
still pending in the courtsystem, but I think we're ,
where we are right now is wereally need to reckon with, you
know, what are the long-termimpacts of just the, the
(04:48):
current upheaval that we'redealing with and what does it
mean for us developmentassistance overall for the
partners that we work in, inthe field and just the, the
sector given, you know, how,what an outsized role the US
government plays in developmentand humanitarian aid.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Yeah, like one of the things I really just think
about is like the breach oftrust, not only between like
the implementers on the grounddoing the work, but then the
communities they are servingwho that or like had services
stopped.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Absolutely. I mean it's , uh, I think the most
horrific short term , or notshort term , but immediate
impact of these funding cuts isliterally people dying. Like pe
people literally losing accessto their, to food services, to
anti antiretroviral medication,to vaccines, to, you know,
(05:46):
things, things that keep themalive and healthy and and safe
are, are being pulled back withzero notice. And so there was
no ability to, to plan aheadfor something like this that
has had catastrophic impact oncommunities and on the
organizations that have haverelied. And the local
(06:06):
organizations that have reliedon on US foreign assistance,
you know, it's a lot of themare just imploding at this
point. And so that also haskind of the , a longer term
impact on the community and the, the services that they were
receiving. So yeah, that, thatloss of trust is, is deep and a
kinda a , a feeling of betrayalbecause just how it was rolled
(06:29):
out. Yeah, I
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Think this is one of those things that
Speaker 2 (06:33):
People
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Who don't work in these sectors maybe don't
understand it , some of it in away where they think, well, we
can get it restarted and likeeverything will be fine. And
like we've talked about aroundlike the global gag rule ,
people think it's like a lightswitch, like, oh, it's in
place. Oh, it's not in place.
And like all the servicesresume and like, everything
(06:55):
like is restarted andeverything's fine, but this is
like infrastructure destructionthat takes a long time to
rebuild. Like people go findnew jobs and you know, it , it
just doesn't restart again,assuming money starts re
reflowing. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I mean that's an excellent point with, with a
lot of the local partnersfolding right now under, under
pressure and budgetconstraints, it's not gonna be
easy to, to just open theirdoors again. They have to,
they're losing personnel,they're losing , um, facilities
and it's, it's just soneedless, right? Like they , we
have, we have medicationssitting in warehouses rotting
(07:37):
because we have, we, meaningthe US government has ca has
canceled the contracts fortheir delivery. We have food
aids sitting in , uh, at docksrotting because we don't have
the infrastructure to get it tothe last mile. So it's, it's
just such a waste and it's soironic given that the, the
supposed impetus for all ofthis is to scale back on
(08:00):
government waste and, andinefficiencies. So it , it
really doesn't make sense atthe end of the day. So
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I think one of the really important parts and why
it's so great to have you on,is to talk about humanitarian
and that the way that we areseeing this play out in the
humanitarian space,
Speaker 2 (08:18):
In the humanitarian space, it's really kind of a ,
a double whammy. I mean, wehave the, the loss of funding
for U-S-A-I-D implementedhumanitarian programs, so
including those that areimplemented through , um,
development contractors or, orinternational NGOs. Those are
the ones that are really welldeveloped, really, you know,
(08:39):
well structured in place in, inthe countries that really need
it. All of that is gettingpulled back , um, due to the
funding funding cuts. But we'realso seeing a , the , the loss
of funding and support for UNagencies who are also doing a
lot of the kind of middlemanagement of humanitarian
assistance. So, you know, worldFood Program, U-N-H-C-R , um,
(09:04):
uh, U-N-F-P-A , all of these UNagencies play a a , a role in
humanitarian system. And theloss of US government funding
to those institutions is, isreally difficult. I mean, for
example, I was just reading theA-A-U-N-F-P-A report that in
Afghanistan where the USgovernment sustains 40% of the
(09:27):
humanitarian operations, thatloss is devastating to,
particularly to women and girlsin Afghanistan who are already
dealing with a number oflimitations on their rights,
limitations on their mobilityand, and ability to access
services. Now, the, you know,one of the last lifelines they
(09:47):
had is female health workersthat were funded by U-N-F-P-A
who can get into some of therural areas or provide the
gender responsive supporthealth services that, that
Afghan women and girls need.
They're no longer funded through the loss of US
government funding. And sothat's gonna have massive
impacts on women's health, onmaternal mortality, on, on
(10:12):
children , um, et cetera.
Similarly in, in Yemen, I meanthere there are nearly 1
million women who are losingaccess to, to reproductive
health services in Ethiopia.
There are nearly 200,000people, including a number of
refugees who are losing accessto SRHR and GBV services. And
(10:32):
these are countries, I mean,Yemen is actively in the middle
of a conflict and humanitariancrisis right now, and Ethiopia
is still recovering from, fromconflict for a number of years.
And so the humanitarian needsare, are deep and the loss of
really critical funding throughthe US government is just gonna
have a , a catastrophic impacton, on those communities.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Yeah, those U-N-F-P-A numbers were
shocking. I, I think it , it'sreally hard for people to
imagine the scale ofdevastation that that is being
caused by the loss of theseprograms. Like I said, UFPA has
to , had some really greatnumbers they put out, we'll
make sure to include that inthe show notes. There was that
(11:15):
great piece by Nick Christophethat was trying to outline like
what the loss of theassistances and like possible
lives lost and again mm-hmm . The scale was
unreal.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Absolutely. And this is not verified, but I I was
reading a resource earliertoday where it , it was
something like a hundred peoplea day are dying because of the
loss of food aid, which is justunimaginably cruel, but it's
just, it it goesagainst our, our values as a
country, but also goes againstlogic and reason. Like how ,
(11:50):
how is it that we're, we'veinvested so much time and
energy and infrastructure intoproviding food, food aid and
we're just stopping it on, on awhim and letting people die. It
, it's quite devastating.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
And if that part doesn't move you, and it should
be more than enough, a lot ofthat food aid is coming from US
farmers. It is coming fromexactly the high energy peanut
stuff. It's , it's coming fromUS companies. It's money in our
economy that is being lost justimportant in , in multiple
(12:24):
ways.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
And it , it really goes to show how foreign
assistance has always been alow hanging fruit for fiscal
conservatives who, who are likethe , you know, why, why are we
spending all of this moneyoverseas? We have needs at
home. Foreign aid is less than1% of the US government budget.
And a big portion of thatactually as you said, supports
(12:47):
us businesses and USagriculture and , and, and
farmers. So it , it , you know,we're kind of, we're kind of ,
uh, what's the term? We're ,we're
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Shooting ourselves in our own foot.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Yes, there you go. I was gonna say, you know,
cutting off our nose, spite ourface, but , there
Speaker 1 (13:02):
We go,
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Shooting ourselves in the foot. It works too.
It's, it, it doesn't , uh, itdoesn't line up. And
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It's like one of those things that has been
immovable where you have thepublic overwhelmingly saying
that they think we spend toomuch on foreign assistance.
They think it's 25% of thebudget, and like, that number
has been that number since Istarted working in this field.
No . And, and then they'relike, it should only be 10%.
(13:32):
And like, like you said, it'sless, less than 1%. Right? Like
great, could you imagine thethings we can do with 10%?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Absolutely. And the funding cuts are huge. Like the
, a huge as , and that's a ,it's a , a massive problem,
massive setback. I think whatwe haven't been talking about
enough is the setbacks in termsof policy. There's a whole
cadre of, of developmentprofessionals who have worked
for decades to integrate genderinto development and
(14:02):
humanitarian policy. And reallybased on evidence, based on
understanding how globaldevelopment works. It , it , it
really does require having agender lens to make sure that
we're, we're being as effectiveand as efficient and as
inclusive as possible. And whatwe're seeing now is not just a
clawback of funding, but alsojust a really concerted effort
(14:26):
to pull back rights, to pullaway from even terminology
related to gender, to anythingthat smacks of inclusion. For
some reason that's a, that's aa bad word, but it's almost a
tenet of how good developmenthas to happen. We have to, to
be inclusive, we have to lookat the, those who are most
(14:48):
likely to be left behind. Andso I , I think what I would
love to see more emphasis on isjust the idea that we don't
need to reinvent this wheel.
We, we don't need to to scaleback on gender and then put it
back in 10 years later when,when we have a friendlier
administration. If the idea isto have efficient and effective
(15:09):
development and humanitarian asassistance programs, we need to
be doing that now. We need tobe accounting for all sectors
of society.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Yeah. That is something that has absolutely
been on my mind as thinkingthrough, like you're hearing
all of these conversationsabout well great, we can, we
can build something better. Andall I can think about is that
better is going to mean we'rebuilding something less without
(15:39):
anything controversial in it.
And all of the things that wetalk about, gender repro, all
of that is gonna be left on thecutting room floor and like
nobody is going to be standingup for us in the same way that
we're trying to stand up forall of making sure that we keep
global foreign assistancearound. I I , I really do worry
(16:01):
about that. And yeah . You knowhow that is gonna set back
gender and sexual andreproductive health for decades
to come. We, you know, therewas that, again, losing track
of time and when things happen, but I think it was last year
there was like a UN womenreport that if we stay on the
same track we are right now, wewon't get gender equality for,
(16:24):
what was it , 300 years? Mm-hmm . Like that is
already devastating. And thatwas before we had all of these
cuts. Like I can't imagine whatthis is going to do to that.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Yeah. I mean, pre covid it was 237 years Yeah. To
, to achieve gender equalitypost covid . And we, we all
know, and we've all talkedabout how much of a setback
covid itself was on genderequality, but to add the
funding cuts to that, thedestructive factor here, it's
(16:55):
more than two generations atthis point. Three generations I
guess for maybedepending on, on how you're
counting it, which is, I mean,we could , we could get
philosophical here, but womenand girls and all others have
been waiting so long we've,they , we've been waiting since
the beginning of time, honestlyto, to have our rights. Um, and
(17:17):
so to have a powerful countryand a powerful government like
the United States stand up andsay, your rights are not
actually your rights is a blow.
Yeah. And I , I think we, we dohave to grapple with that and
we do have to talk about it andname it and not get bogged down
in the , the technicalities ofjust the funding. It's this,
(17:38):
these, as we're talking aboutthe funding, all of this stuff
with the, with the actualpolicy and, and kind of lens of
gender in a more expansivedefinition and, and inclusion
and diversity is all kind ofbacksliding.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
And I think this is one of those areas where those
of us who work in global sexualand reproductive health are
more familiar with having tohave that debate, right? We've
had years where they're like,okay, well we'll keep global
gag rule, but give you moremoney. And it's like more
gagged money is not helpful. Weneed people to be able to
(18:16):
access the care they need. Sobeing able to like weigh those
two things and know that if youare restricting the programs
and who is getting access tothose programs or cutting back
on gender more money isn'tgoing to make as much progress
as if you have good policiesbehind that money.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I was thinking back on,
on an example, we, we used backwhen we were advocating a lot
on women's economicempowerment, the fir this was
during the first Trumpadministration and there was so
much emphasis from, from theadministration on like pure
women's economic empowermentissues like financial inclusion
(18:59):
and banking and uh, and soforth. And us from the advocacy
community are like, yes, we doneed that, but we also need to
look at women and girls andpeople of , of other genders in
a broader sense. We know thatlack of access to
contraceptives has a directimpact on women's ability to
earn and that has a directimpact on their daughter's
(19:21):
ability to go to school andtherefore their ability to earn
later. So we, we have to keepconnecting those dots and we, I
feel like we had made progresson that, right? Even with the
first Trump administration, wehad made progress in terms of
like linking those two issuesas, you know, something that we
have to think about. And wemade progress on instituting
(19:42):
the policies at U-S-A-I-D toask those questions, like what
are the, the broader issuesthat we need to be accounting
for if we want economicempowerment? I feel like with,
with so many of these policychanges that we've had just in
the past two, three months, wehave clawed that back to the
dark ages in a lot ofways. And, and so my point is,
(20:06):
even the programs that we knowthat the Trump administration
purportedly supports, those arenot gonna be as effective if
we're not taking into accountsome of these things that they
don't support that's gonna setus back.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Yeah. It makes me think back to like all of these
like conversations we hadaround like gender and like
making sure we're talking aboutgender based violence that's
inclusive and not just focusingon women and girls, but that
it's more than that. And likenow we're just at the ba we're
like so far back from that,it's like, why we need to talk
(20:41):
about women, girls at all andlike, why we need to invest in
women and girls. Like, we'renot even to the point where we
can have that broaderconversation because they're
just trying to wipe out all ofit.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah.,
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Sorry, y'all we're kind of a bummer today.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Yeah, yeah, it is.
Yeah . It's a, it's a toughtime and I, I don't know how we
bounce back. I, I wanna likeinject some hope here and I, I
don't know how we, how we buildback, but I think at this
moment we absolutely need tocontinue pushing back. And I ,
(21:20):
I feel like there's, there's somuch overwhelm and there's so
much to react to and there's somuch here that could splinter
us as us, meaning like the, thegender and us , our HR
community, that is the oppositeof what we need to do right
now. Right now we need to belinking arms and being louder
than ever because there's somuch at risk. And so it's hard,
(21:44):
it's hard to like cut throughall of the, the noise and, and
overwhelm of the , of themoment that we're in, but
there's so much at stake.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
Yeah. We need to be loud. We need to encourage our
congressional champions to beloud and, and to, you know,
fight back for they createdU-S-A-I-D like they, they have
a real say in this and theyneed to fight back to ensure
that these programs continue toexist in the way that Congress
(22:14):
wanted them to exist. Exactly.
Like there are some people whoare doing a really good job
standing up, but I feel likethere's , um, they need to be
louder.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Yeah. I mean I'm all for quiet conversations and
inside baseball where it'sgonna be effective. I mean, ask
me in like a month or so, butright now , I don't, I
don't feel like that is themost effective way. I feel like
we, we do have to, we have tobe loud, we have to have our
champions, as you said, haveour champions be loud. They,
(22:44):
they can't have these rely onthese quiet conversations with
their colleagues across aisle ,the aisle. It's, it's people
have dug in to , to theirpositions. And so to, to the
extent that our champions havea voice, have positions of
power in, in the committeesthat they sit on, have , um,
(23:05):
you know, have a platform.
They, they too should belinking arms and really calling
out what matters.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Okay, so we talked about, you know, being loud,
but what else can our audiencedo? Like what can we do to
fight back to ensure that, one,we keep having foreign
assistance, but two, that weare making sure that we are
fighting for policies aroundgender and that we are fighting
for things around sexual andreproductive health and they
(23:32):
don't get left behind.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
I mean,
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Guide solve all the problems, ,
Speaker 2 (23:39):
I I , I think the, the most empowering thing I
feel like I've done in thismoment is calling my member of
Congress and amping them up .
Like, I have fantastic membersof congress, I live in
Maryland, they, they're veryvocal on foreign policy issues,
but I, they were not talkingenough about the, the impact of
(24:02):
funding cuts on actual peopleand communities and the im the
longer term impacts on womenand girls and, and on gender
equality as a whole. And soreaching out to my members of
Congress and making sure thatthey had those talking points,
that they knew that this issomething that's important, you
know, to, to us as a community,but also, you know, to our ,
(24:24):
our state and locality. I Ithink made me feel a
little better. I don't know ifit makes a difference in the
long run, but , but I think itdoes. I think, I think we are a
very powerful block of, ofadvocates and the, the more we
push as constituents, as wellas advocates, I think we just
gotta keep banging, banging onthat door. But I also, you
(24:47):
know, and maybe this is, no, Idon't think this is defeatist.
I think this is tacticalanalysis of the moment that
we're in, which is that we, wereally have to reckon with the
idea that maybe foreignassistance is not the answer to
what we're trying to achieve inthe world. And maybe this is
(25:08):
that inflection point thatwhere we need to question
should us as, as citizens, as,as people be supporting a local
civil society and strengtheningtheir ability to capture local
philanthropy and build theirown kind of efficiencies and
processes so that they're notas reliant on the whims of the
(25:32):
US government. And mind you,it's not even just just the US
government. We're, we're seeingcuts in the UK in, you know,
changes in policy in Germany,Netherlands, et cetera. Like
there's, there's so much goingon right now that's, that's
stacking up against us. Weneeded an alternative way to
kind of shore up the , theresources and the work that is
(25:54):
happening on the ground. And soI think really using this
moment to rethink how , how do, how do we do this? How do we
resource services and aid andexpansion of programs from
other sources? I, I think weneed to, to really think that
through. And I thinkphilanthropy, other donors,
it's a , it's a moment for themto step up.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Yeah. And I , I would also just add, because it
is so rampant is like pushingback on some of that
misinformation if you hear it ,uh, particularly around the,
like, so much of our money isgoing to foreign assistance
because I think when peopleunderstand how much good it
does and how little of ourbudget it is, they're more
(26:36):
supportive.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Um , that would be my my second kind of meta
call to action, whichis, you know , think, think
through ways you can supportlocal organizations who are
doing this work on the ground.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
It's important. It saves lives, it makes us safer.
It's, it's just, it's importantand
Speaker 2 (26:54):
How it actually keeps America safer, right?
Like the , you know, the whole,the whole mantle of America
first does it, does it, youknow, support our, our
security, our prosperity, blahblah, blah. Like this is soft
power , we , we shouldbe investing in it. It does
keep America safer, it doesbuild bridges and it does
(27:17):
establish cooperation andcollaboration in ways that
military assistance, otherforms of international
relations cannot. I I thinkthat it , it's so myopic to, to
only look at it in terms ofdollar figures.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Rie , thank you so much for being here. As always,
it was a joy to talk to you.
Thanks
Speaker 2 (27:38):
So much , Jenny .
You got me riled up. I'm gonnago call my my senator again.
Yay. He's uh , he's on my speeddial now, . But thanks
so much Jenny . Thanks foreverything that you do and ,
um, and I hope that next timewe talk we're, we're in a
better place and we'recelebrating we lots of wins
rather than lots of threats.
(28:00):
.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Ugh . I hope. Okay, y'all, I hope you enjoyed my
conversation with Gare . It waskind of a heavy conversation.
Things are feeling a littlebleak, but it was a good
conversation. And with that, Iwill see everybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email. You
can reach me at jenny jn nie@reprofightback.com or you
(28:26):
can find us on social media.
We're at re pros. Fight back onFacebook and Twitter or re pros
FB on Instagram. If you loveour podcast and wanna make sure
more people find it, take thetime to rate and review us on
your favorite podcast platform.
Or if you wanna make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atre pros fight back.com . Thanks
(28:48):
all.
Welcome to Repro Fight Back a podcast on all
things related to sexual andreproductive health rights and
justice. Hey, re pros. How'severybody doing? I'm your host
Jenny Wetter , and my pronounsare she her. So y'all , um,
maybe just a little bit ofhousekeeping before we get
started. I feel like it's beena little minute since I have
(00:26):
done anything about donating.
So just gonna like slap alittle promo here at the top.
If you love the podcast, pleasefeel free to support us. You
can write and review us on yourfavorite podcast platform, but
you can also donate to us onour website at re pros fight
back.com . And if you get , ifyou donate, we also have fun
(00:47):
giveaways for if you donate. Wehave these really fun stickers
that we had, liberal Janedesign and a fun postcard. And
so for a $25 donation, you willget a full set of stickers plus
the postcard. And we also havea really fun bag that I just
love y'all. We have this reallycute design that is done like a
(01:08):
comic book speech bubble thatsays abortion is a human right,
not a dirty word. I really loveit and I love the bag. It's
like really fun and brightpuppy colors. Um, so for a $50
donation, you get the bag andall of the stickers we have. So
if you support us and wannasend us some love, we would
really appreciate that. And Iguess while I'm talking about
(01:30):
like our fun swag we have, wehave also been considering
maybe opening, like gettingmerch where you could buy these
fun designs on, on differentthings. So would that be
something y'all be interestedin? Like, would you want us to
get a little merch store whereyou could get some of these fun
designs on a mug or a stickeror, I don't know, we let us
(01:55):
know if you're interested. Ifyou also, if you have things
you would like, like did youwant a mug, do you want a water
bottle? What would you beinterested in? Uh, so just send
us a note. I'd love to knowone, if you would be interested
in buying merch, but two, ifthere are things that you would
like to see designs on, justlet us know. And with that, I,
(02:18):
I actually think I'm gonna keepthe intro a little short this
week. I, I have some fun thingshappening, but I'm not quite
ready to tell y'all yet. You'llfind out I think next week, but
until then, it makes it alittle hard for me to talk
about the things that arehappening. So instead of
teasing y'all, I'm just gonnago cut straight to this week's
episode. I'm very excited aboutit. We have our wonderful
(02:42):
senior fellow Gare Patel totalk about what is happening
around foreign assistance rightnow, particularly in
humanitarian settings. It'sbeen a while since we talked
about what was going on withU-S-A-I-D, so it felt like a
really important time to catcheverybody up on what is
happening. So with that, let'sgo to my interview with gare .
(03:02):
Hi Gare . Thank you so much forbeing here today.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
Hey, Jenny , it's so great to be back.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
I'm always excited to have you on. Um, but before
we like jump into theconversation, do you wanna take
a minute and introduce yourselfand include your pronouns?
Speaker 2 (03:16):
Sure. My name is Gare Patel. She, her pronouns.
I am , um, professional in theglobal development gender
equality, SRHR world. Um, and Ihave been a , a fellow with the
repro fight back work for overa year now. So really excited
(03:37):
to be here.
Speaker 1 (03:38):
So excited to have you and it , we've now been ,
uh, under the newadministration for a couple
months and there's been so muchhappening around foreign
assistance. I thought it waslike a good time to like check
back in and talk about whereare we at? Like what is
happening right now?
Speaker 2 (03:59):
I mean,
Speaker 1 (04:02):
No small question.
Right?
Speaker 2 (04:03):
So it feels like it changes every day and it , it ,
it gets worse and worse for,for the development in
humanitarian aid sectors. But Ithink overall we, we have
blocking of US foreignassistance funding, including
for development programs,humanitarian programs,
multilateral assistance, etcetera . We have dismantling of
(04:26):
institutions, primarilyU-S-A-I-D , the US Agency for
International Development. We,we have, you know, some
glimmers of hope in terms ofsome of these decisions are
still pending in the courtsystem, but I think we're ,
where we are right now is wereally need to reckon with, you
know, what are the long-termimpacts of just the, the
(04:48):
current upheaval that we'redealing with and what does it
mean for us developmentassistance overall for the
partners that we work in, inthe field and just the, the
sector given, you know, how,what an outsized role the US
government plays in developmentand humanitarian aid.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
Yeah, like one of the things I really just think
about is like the breach oftrust, not only between like
the implementers on the grounddoing the work, but then the
communities they are servingwho that or like had services
stopped.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
Absolutely. I mean it's , uh, I think the most
horrific short term , or notshort term , but immediate
impact of these funding cuts isliterally people dying. Like pe
people literally losing accessto their, to food services, to
anti antiretroviral medication,to vaccines, to, you know,
(05:46):
things, things that keep themalive and healthy and and safe
are, are being pulled back withzero notice. And so there was
no ability to, to plan aheadfor something like this that
has had catastrophic impact oncommunities and on the
organizations that have haverelied. And the local
(06:06):
organizations that have reliedon on US foreign assistance,
you know, it's a lot of themare just imploding at this
point. And so that also haskind of the , a longer term
impact on the community and the, the services that they were
receiving. So yeah, that, thatloss of trust is, is deep and a
kinda a , a feeling of betrayalbecause just how it was rolled
(06:29):
out. Yeah, I
Speaker 1 (06:30):
Think this is one of those things that
Speaker 2 (06:33):
People
Speaker 1 (06:34):
Who don't work in these sectors maybe don't
understand it , some of it in away where they think, well, we
can get it restarted and likeeverything will be fine. And
like we've talked about aroundlike the global gag rule ,
people think it's like a lightswitch, like, oh, it's in
place. Oh, it's not in place.
And like all the servicesresume and like, everything
(06:55):
like is restarted andeverything's fine, but this is
like infrastructure destructionthat takes a long time to
rebuild. Like people go findnew jobs and you know, it , it
just doesn't restart again,assuming money starts re
reflowing. Yeah,
Speaker 2 (07:13):
I mean that's an excellent point with, with a
lot of the local partnersfolding right now under, under
pressure and budgetconstraints, it's not gonna be
easy to, to just open theirdoors again. They have to,
they're losing personnel,they're losing , um, facilities
and it's, it's just soneedless, right? Like they , we
have, we have medicationssitting in warehouses rotting
(07:37):
because we have, we, meaningthe US government has ca has
canceled the contracts fortheir delivery. We have food
aids sitting in , uh, at docksrotting because we don't have
the infrastructure to get it tothe last mile. So it's, it's
just such a waste and it's soironic given that the, the
supposed impetus for all ofthis is to scale back on
(08:00):
government waste and, andinefficiencies. So it , it
really doesn't make sense atthe end of the day. So
Speaker 1 (08:06):
I think one of the really important parts and why
it's so great to have you on,is to talk about humanitarian
and that the way that we areseeing this play out in the
humanitarian space,
Speaker 2 (08:18):
In the humanitarian space, it's really kind of a ,
a double whammy. I mean, wehave the, the loss of funding
for U-S-A-I-D implementedhumanitarian programs, so
including those that areimplemented through , um,
development contractors or, orinternational NGOs. Those are
the ones that are really welldeveloped, really, you know,
(08:39):
well structured in place in, inthe countries that really need
it. All of that is gettingpulled back , um, due to the
funding funding cuts. But we'realso seeing a , the , the loss
of funding and support for UNagencies who are also doing a
lot of the kind of middlemanagement of humanitarian
assistance. So, you know, worldFood Program, U-N-H-C-R , um,
(09:04):
uh, U-N-F-P-A , all of these UNagencies play a a , a role in
humanitarian system. And theloss of US government funding
to those institutions is, isreally difficult. I mean, for
example, I was just reading theA-A-U-N-F-P-A report that in
Afghanistan where the USgovernment sustains 40% of the
(09:27):
humanitarian operations, thatloss is devastating to,
particularly to women and girlsin Afghanistan who are already
dealing with a number oflimitations on their rights,
limitations on their mobilityand, and ability to access
services. Now, the, you know,one of the last lifelines they
(09:47):
had is female health workersthat were funded by U-N-F-P-A
who can get into some of therural areas or provide the
gender responsive supporthealth services that, that
Afghan women and girls need.
They're no longer funded
government funding. And sothat's gonna have massive
impacts on women's health, onmaternal mortality, on, on
(10:12):
children , um, et cetera.
Similarly in, in Yemen, I meanthere there are nearly 1
million women who are losingaccess to, to reproductive
health services in Ethiopia.
There are nearly 200,000people, including a number of
refugees who are losing accessto SRHR and GBV services. And
(10:32):
these are countries, I mean,Yemen is actively in the middle
of a conflict and humanitariancrisis right now, and Ethiopia
is still recovering from, fromconflict for a number of years.
And so the humanitarian needsare, are deep and the loss of
really critical funding throughthe US government is just gonna
have a , a catastrophic impacton, on those communities.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
Yeah, those U-N-F-P-A numbers were
shocking. I, I think it , it'sreally hard for people to
imagine the scale ofdevastation that that is being
caused by the loss of theseprograms. Like I said, UFPA has
to , had some really greatnumbers they put out, we'll
make sure to include that inthe show notes. There was that
(11:15):
great piece by Nick Christophethat was trying to outline like
what the loss of theassistances and like possible
lives lost and again mm-hmm
unreal.
Speaker 2 (11:28):
Absolutely. And this is not verified, but I I was
reading a resource earliertoday where it , it was
something like a hundred peoplea day are dying because of the
loss of food aid, which is justunimaginably cruel, but it's
just, it
country, but also goes againstlogic and reason. Like how ,
(11:50):
how is it that we're, we'veinvested so much time and
energy and infrastructure intoproviding food, food aid and
we're just stopping it on, on awhim and letting people die. It
, it's quite devastating.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
And if that part doesn't move you, and it should
be more than enough, a lot ofthat food aid is coming from US
farmers. It is coming fromexactly the high energy peanut
stuff. It's , it's coming fromUS companies. It's money in our
economy that is being lost justimportant in , in multiple
(12:24):
ways.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
And it , it really goes to show how foreign
assistance has always been alow hanging fruit for fiscal
conservatives who, who are likethe , you know, why, why are we
spending all of this moneyoverseas? We have needs at
home. Foreign aid is less than1% of the US government budget.
And a big portion of thatactually as you said, supports
(12:47):
us businesses and USagriculture and , and, and
farmers. So it , it , you know,we're kind of, we're kind of ,
uh, what's the term? We're ,we're
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Shooting ourselves in our own foot.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
Yes, there you go. I was gonna say, you know,
cutting off our nose, spite ourface, but
Speaker 1 (13:02):
We go,
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Shooting ourselves in the foot. It works too.
It's, it, it doesn't , uh, itdoesn't line up. And
Speaker 1 (13:08):
It's like one of those things that has been
immovable where you have thepublic overwhelmingly saying
that they think we spend toomuch on foreign assistance.
They think it's 25% of thebudget, and like, that number
has been that number since Istarted working in this field.
No . And, and then they'relike, it should only be 10%.
(13:32):
And like, like you said, it'sless, less than 1%. Right? Like
great, could you imagine thethings we can do with 10%?
Speaker 2 (13:39):
Absolutely. And the funding cuts are huge. Like the
, a huge as , and that's a ,it's a , a massive problem,
massive setback. I think whatwe haven't been talking about
enough is the setbacks in termsof policy. There's a whole
cadre of, of developmentprofessionals who have worked
for decades to integrate genderinto development and
(14:02):
humanitarian policy. And reallybased on evidence, based on
understanding how globaldevelopment works. It , it , it
really does require having agender lens to make sure that
we're, we're being as effectiveand as efficient and as
inclusive as possible. And whatwe're seeing now is not just a
clawback of funding, but alsojust a really concerted effort
(14:26):
to pull back rights, to pullaway from even terminology
related to gender, to anythingthat smacks of inclusion. For
some reason that's a, that's aa bad word, but it's almost a
tenet of how good developmenthas to happen. We have to, to
be inclusive, we have to lookat the, those who are most
(14:48):
likely to be left behind. Andso I , I think what I would
love to see more emphasis on isjust the idea that we don't
need to reinvent this wheel.
We, we don't need to to scaleback on gender and then put it
back in 10 years later when,when we have a friendlier
administration. If the idea isto have efficient and effective
(15:09):
development and humanitarian asassistance programs, we need to
be doing that now. We need tobe accounting for all sectors
of society.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Yeah. That is something that has absolutely
been on my mind as thinkingthrough, like you're hearing
all of these conversationsabout well great, we can, we
can build something better. Andall I can think about is that
better is going to mean we'rebuilding something less without
(15:39):
anything controversial in it.
And all of the things that wetalk about, gender repro, all
of that is gonna be left on thecutting room floor and like
nobody is going to be standingup for us in the same way that
we're trying to stand up forall of making sure that we keep
global foreign assistancearound. I I , I really do worry
(16:01):
about that. And yeah . You knowhow that is gonna set back
gender and sexual andreproductive health for decades
to come. We, you know, therewas that, again, losing track
of time and when things happen, but I think it was last year
there was like a UN womenreport that if we stay on the
same track we are right now, wewon't get gender equality for,
(16:24):
what was it , 300 years? Mm-hmm
already devastating. And thatwas before we had all of these
cuts. Like I can't imagine whatthis is going to do to that.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Yeah. I mean, pre covid it was 237 years Yeah. To
, to achieve gender equalitypost covid . And we, we all
know, and we've all talkedabout how much of a setback
covid itself was on genderequality, but to add the
funding cuts to that, thedestructive factor here, it's
(16:55):
more than two generations atthis point. Three generations I
guess for maybe
counting it, which is, I mean,we could , we could get
philosophical here, but womenand girls and all others have
been waiting so long we've,they , we've been waiting since
the beginning of time, honestlyto, to have our rights. Um, and
(17:17):
so to have a powerful countryand a powerful government like
the United States stand up andsay, your rights are not
actually your rights is a blow.
Yeah. And I , I think we, we dohave to grapple with that and
we do have to talk about it andname it and not get bogged down
in the , the technicalities ofjust the funding. It's this,
(17:38):
these, as we're talking aboutthe funding, all of this stuff
with the, with the actualpolicy and, and kind of lens of
gender in a more expansivedefinition and, and inclusion
and diversity is all kind ofbacksliding.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
And I think this is one of those areas where those
of us who work in global sexualand reproductive health are
more familiar with having tohave that debate, right? We've
had years where they're like,okay, well we'll keep global
gag rule, but give you moremoney. And it's like more
gagged money is not helpful. Weneed people to be able to
(18:16):
access the care they need. Sobeing able to like weigh those
two things and know that if youare restricting the programs
and who is getting access tothose programs or cutting back
on gender more money isn'tgoing to make as much progress
as if you have good policiesbehind that money.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I was thinking back on,
on an example, we, we used backwhen we were advocating a lot
on women's economicempowerment, the fir this was
during the first Trumpadministration and there was so
much emphasis from, from theadministration on like pure
women's economic empowermentissues like financial inclusion
(18:59):
and banking and uh, and soforth. And us from the advocacy
community are like, yes, we doneed that, but we also need to
look at women and girls andpeople of , of other genders in
a broader sense. We know thatlack of access to
contraceptives has a directimpact on women's ability to
earn and that has a directimpact on their daughter's
(19:21):
ability to go to school andtherefore their ability to earn
later. So we, we have to keepconnecting those dots and we, I
feel like we had made progresson that, right? Even with the
first Trump administration, wehad made progress in terms of
like linking those two issuesas, you know, something that we
have to think about. And wemade progress on instituting
(19:42):
the policies at U-S-A-I-D toask those questions, like what
are the, the broader issuesthat we need to be accounting
for if we want economicempowerment? I feel like with,
with so many of these policychanges that we've had just in
the past two, three months, wehave clawed that back to the
dark ages
(20:06):
even the programs that we knowthat the Trump administration
purportedly supports, those arenot gonna be as effective if
we're not taking into accountsome of these things that they
don't support that's gonna setus back.
Speaker 1 (20:19):
Yeah. It makes me think back to like all of these
like conversations we hadaround like gender and like
making sure we're talking aboutgender based violence that's
inclusive and not just focusingon women and girls, but that
it's more than that. And likenow we're just at the ba we're
like so far back from that,it's like, why we need to talk
(20:41):
about women, girls at all andlike, why we need to invest in
women and girls. Like, we'renot even to the point where we
can have that broaderconversation because they're
just trying to wipe out all ofit.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
Sorry, y'all we're kind of a bummer today.
Speaker 2 (20:59):
Yeah, yeah, it is.
Yeah . It's a, it's a toughtime and I, I don't know how we
bounce back. I, I wanna likeinject some hope here and I, I
don't know how we, how we buildback, but I think at this
moment we absolutely need tocontinue pushing back. And I ,
(21:20):
I feel like there's, there's somuch overwhelm and there's so
much to react to and there's somuch here that could splinter
us as us, meaning like the, thegender and us , our HR
community, that is the oppositeof what we need to do right
now. Right now we need to belinking arms and being louder
than ever because there's somuch at risk. And so it's hard,
(21:44):
it's hard to like cut throughall of the, the noise and, and
overwhelm of the , of themoment that we're in, but
there's so much at stake.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
Yeah. We need to be loud. We need to encourage our
congressional champions to beloud and, and to, you know,
fight back for they createdU-S-A-I-D like they, they have
a real say in this and theyneed to fight back to ensure
that these programs continue toexist in the way that Congress
(22:14):
wanted them to exist. Exactly.
Like there are some people whoare doing a really good job
standing up, but I feel likethere's , um, they need to be
louder.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
Yeah. I mean I'm all for quiet conversations and
inside baseball where it'sgonna be effective. I mean, ask
me in like a month or so, butright now
don't feel like that is themost effective way. I feel like
we, we do have to, we have tobe loud, we have to have our
champions, as you said, haveour champions be loud. They,
(22:44):
they can't have these rely onthese quiet conversations with
their colleagues across aisle ,the aisle. It's, it's people
have dug in to , to theirpositions. And so to, to the
extent that our champions havea voice, have positions of
power in, in the committeesthat they sit on, have , um,
(23:05):
you know, have a platform.
They, they too should belinking arms and really calling
out what matters.
Speaker 1 (23:12):
Okay, so we talked about, you know, being loud,
but what else can our audiencedo? Like what can we do to
fight back to ensure that, one,we keep having foreign
assistance, but two, that weare making sure that we are
fighting for policies aroundgender and that we are fighting
for things around sexual andreproductive health and they
(23:32):
don't get left behind.
Speaker 2 (23:34):
I mean,
Speaker 1 (23:37):
Guide solve all the problems,
Speaker 2 (23:39):
I I , I think the, the most empowering thing I
feel like I've done in thismoment is calling my member of
Congress and amping them up .
Like, I have fantastic membersof congress, I live in
Maryland, they, they're veryvocal on foreign policy issues,
but I, they were not talkingenough about the, the impact of
(24:02):
funding cuts on actual peopleand communities and the im the
longer term impacts on womenand girls and, and on gender
equality as a whole. And soreaching out to my members of
Congress and making sure thatthey had those talking points,
that they knew that this issomething that's important, you
know, to, to us as a community,but also, you know, to our ,
(24:24):
our state and locality. I Ithink
little better. I don't know ifit makes a difference in the
long run, but , but I think itdoes. I think, I think we are a
very powerful block of, ofadvocates and the, the more we
push as constituents, as wellas advocates, I think we just
gotta keep banging, banging onthat door. But I also, you
(24:47):
know, and maybe this is, no, Idon't think this is defeatist.
I think this is tacticalanalysis of the moment that
we're in, which is that we, wereally have to reckon with the
idea that maybe foreignassistance is not the answer to
what we're trying to achieve inthe world. And maybe this is
(25:08):
that inflection point thatwhere we need to question
should us as, as citizens, as,as people be supporting a local
civil society and strengtheningtheir ability to capture local
philanthropy and build theirown kind of efficiencies and
processes so that they're notas reliant on the whims of the
(25:32):
US government. And mind you,it's not even just just the US
government. We're, we're seeingcuts in the UK in, you know,
changes in policy in Germany,Netherlands, et cetera. Like
there's, there's so much goingon right now that's, that's
stacking up against us. Weneeded an alternative way to
kind of shore up the , theresources and the work that is
(25:54):
happening on the ground. And soI think really using this
moment to rethink how , how do, how do we do this? How do we
resource services and aid andexpansion of programs from
other sources? I, I think weneed to, to really think that
through. And I thinkphilanthropy, other donors,
it's a , it's a moment for themto step up.
Speaker 1 (26:15):
Yeah. And I , I would also just add, because it
is so rampant is like pushingback on some of that
misinformation if you hear it ,uh, particularly around the,
like, so much of our money isgoing to foreign assistance
because I think when peopleunderstand how much good it
does and how little of ourbudget it is, they're more
(26:36):
supportive.
Speaker 2 (26:37):
Um , that would be my my second kind of meta
through ways you can supportlocal organizations who are
doing this work on the ground.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
It's important. It saves lives, it makes us safer.
It's, it's just, it's importantand
Speaker 2 (26:54):
How it actually keeps America safer, right?
Like the , you know, the whole,the whole mantle of America
first does it, does it, youknow, support our, our
security, our prosperity, blahblah, blah. Like this is soft
power
keep America safer, it doesbuild bridges and it does
(27:17):
establish cooperation andcollaboration in ways that
military assistance, otherforms of international
relations cannot. I I thinkthat it , it's so myopic to, to
only look at it in terms ofdollar figures.
Speaker 1 (27:33):
Rie , thank you so much for being here. As always,
it was a joy to talk to you.
Thanks
Speaker 2 (27:38):
So much , Jenny .
You got me riled up. I'm gonnago call my my senator again.
Yay. He's uh , he's on my speeddial now,
so much Jenny . Thanks foreverything that you do and ,
um, and I hope that next timewe talk we're, we're in a
better place and we'recelebrating we lots of wins
rather than lots of threats.
(28:00):
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Ugh . I hope. Okay, y'all, I hope you enjoyed my
conversation with Gare . It waskind of a heavy conversation.
Things are feeling a littlebleak, but it was a good
conversation. And with that, Iwill see everybody next week.
If you have any questions,comments, or topics you would
like us to cover, always feelfree to shoot me an email. You
can reach me at jenny jn nie@reprofightback.com or you
(28:26):
can find us on social media.
We're at re pros. Fight back onFacebook and Twitter or re pros
FB on Instagram. If you loveour podcast and wanna make sure
more people find it, take thetime to rate and review us on
your favorite podcast platform.
Or if you wanna make sure tosupport the podcast, you can
also donate on our website atre pros fight back.com . Thanks
(28:48):
all.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.