Additional Context: This information comes from a report produced by Inclusive Development Partners, or IDP, a research and technical assistance organization. Using a mixed-methods design under IRB approval from the University of Massachusetts Boston, the study triangulated a global survey of staff from 82 projects across 80 implementing organizations with key informant interviews and focus group discussions across eight countries where IDP had existing programs: Bangladesh, El Salvador, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Nepal, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Data collection took place between January and March 2026.

According to IDP, government officials, organizations of persons with disabilities, and implementing partners consistently described the absence of warning, transition planning, and consultation as ethically indefensible. Several government respondents used the word “unethical” to characterize the withdrawal. Others described it as a betrayal of trust built over years of partnership. Respondents did not characterize the abruptness as a difficult policy decision made under constrained circumstances. They described it as evidence that U.S. commitments to partner governments and communities were conditional, revocable, and ultimately unreliable.

Source: Inclusive Development Partners