When USAID pulled out of Nigeria in January 2025, it left a gaping hole in the country’s development and humanitarian funding landscape. For over two decades, the agency had been the largest international donor in Nigeria, pouring nearly a billion dollars annually into health, humanitarian aid, and education. But two new funding opportunities, launched with great fanfare, promised to fill the void. Instead, they have delivered a sobering reality check for local civil society organizations.
USAID’s exit was no small matter. Between 2002 and 2024, its annual assistance to Nigeria skyrocketed from $90 million to over $942 million. In the last five years alone, it obligated $2.54 billion for humanitarian work and $2.8 billion for health programs, including major initiatives against HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Education support, though smaller, still reached $75 million between 2014 and 2017. The agency had even begun a localization push, aiming to channel 25% of its funds directly to Nigerian organizations by 2030.
That promise evaporated in January 2025, leaving thousands of Nigerian CSOs scrambling. Development analysts, led by the MacArthur Foundation and The Aid Report, have been documenting the fallout. In June, European think tanks hosted a webinar on the dangerous gap in women’s health funding, using Nigeria as a case study.
Enter two new funds: Levers for Change and the Project Resource Optimisation (PRO). Both launched in 2024 with bold ambitions. Levers for Change, backed by a $250,000 investment from Pivotal—a group founded by Melinda French Gates—opened a global call for Action for Women’s Health. PRO used a matchmaking approach to connect programs losing USAID funding with private donors.
On November 12, 2025, Levers announced its 83 awardees. Eight organizations will work on women’s health in Nigeria. They include global heavyweights like Lifebox, MMV Medicines for Malaria Venture, the International Rescue Committee, and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. All are global entities. None are Nigerian CSOs. Most grants cover multiple countries—one spans 16 nations. Only one grantee, the GEANCO Foundation, focuses solely on Nigeria.
PRO’s results are no different. It awarded $25 million for humanitarian programming in Nigeria between 2025 and 2026. Again, all grantees are global organizations. No Nigerian CSO made the cut. The review process didn’t even require partnering with local groups.
The message is clear: in a post-USAID world, multi-country coverage trumps localization. Risk aversion favors safe bets over local impact. But not all hope is lost. The Norwegian Refugee Council and the EU CSO-BRIDGE project continue to push for localization. And funders like Ford, MacArthur, and OSF are pooling resources to strengthen Nigerian CSOs for the long haul. The evidence from these initiatives may yet draw more funding to localization—a critical but still underfunded area.
Judith-Ann Walker is Executive Director of the development Research and Projects Center (dRPC).
