Many Jobs Are Gone. The Need Is Not. A Realistic Guide for Development & Humanitarian Professionals
If you are reading this, there is a reasonable chance you have recently lost a job, had a contract frozen, watched a program you spent years building get terminated in a two-paragraph email, or are simply staring at a sector that looks fundamentally unrecognizable from a year ago. You are not alone – and this post is for you.
I want to be honest with you upfront: this is not a "dust yourself off and pivot to tech!" post. Remember when learning to code was going to guarantee people jobs forever? That's not turning out very well right now. The situation in international development and humanitarian work right now is genuinely hard, the job market is brutal, and anyone telling you otherwise is either not paying attention or trying to sell you a course. What I can offer is a realistic look at what has happened, what the job market actually looks like, and six data-backed tips for navigating what comes next – whether that means finding new work in the sector, crossing into an adjacent field, or taking some time to figure out what you even want.
I have spent years working in and alongside this sector. What is happening right now is not a valley. It is a structural rupture – and naming it honestly feels more respectful than cheerleading.
Some key data points to get started.
USAID, the world's largest single aid donor for decades, was formally dissolved on July 1, 2025. More than 80% of its programs were terminated over the course of 2025, with remaining initiatives folded into the State Department. According to Devex, more than 280,000 people worldwide have lost jobs since the agency shut – former federal staff, contractors, local implementing partners, and the thousands of people employed downstream. That is 280,000 careers, families, and communities disrupted overnight.
But it did not stop with USAID. The OECD projects a 9–17% drop in official development assistance in 2025, compounding a 9% drop in 2024. For the first time in history, the US, UK, Germany, and France simultaneously cut their ODA budgets for two consecutive years. CNN reported that reductions will deepen further in 2026. The UN system is expected to contract by 30% compared to its 2023 peak, with Secretary-General Guterres announcing plans to eliminate 20% of UN Secretariat positions. Ethiopia, Jordan, Afghanistan, and the DRC face the largest nominal aid losses; Lesotho, Micronesia, and Eswatini may each lose around 50% of incoming aid.
Part of what helped me put this post together – and I want to be honest about this – is how my partner and I try to stay sane right now. Exercise. Volunteering. Trying to support others wherever we can. And political comedy, which has become genuinely essential. This morning we started our day by watching John Oliver's latest Last Week Tonight, his March 8, 2026 segment on the destruction of USAID. I have read about this extensively, written about it, talked with many, many professionals around the globe (and helped coach many in their transitions) watched it affect people I know personally around the world. And still, watching Oliver lay it out with his particular brand of outrage and dark humor hit differently. Because underneath the jokes is the real story: tens of thousands of professionals losing their livelihoods, and millions of people – real people – losing access to health care, education, and basic sanitation. It is, as Oliver makes clear, genuinely insane.
I should point out that this contraction is also deeply uneven in its effects. Local development professionals in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America – the people who actually delivered much of this work on the ground – have received far less coverage and far less support than their US-based counterparts, even though they represent the majority of those affected. Devex has reported on this gap directly, and it is something worth naming.
Before getting getting the tips, one thing worth saying clearly: development and humanitarian work still exists. Foundations, bi-laterals, multilaterals, social enterprises, locally-led organizations, and many INGOs are still hiring – at reduced volume, yes, and with more competition than a year ago, but they are hiring. Not every door is closed.
The competition for these roles is fierce, and hiring freezes have hit many large organizations hard. But before concluding that the sector is entirely closed, check what is actually posted. You may be surprised – and focusing your energy on genuinely available opportunities is always more useful than assuming nothing exists.
That said, the realistic picture is that the total number of positions is smaller, competition is much higher, and the organizations still hiring are often prioritizing local talent, short-term contracts, and specific technical profiles. That matters for how you approach your search.
The sector is flooded with talent competing for fewer roles. Hundreds of thousands of experienced professionals are looking at the same postings. UN agencies that traditionally absorbed talent from bilateral donors are cutting (and more is coming), not growing. And the private-sector opportunities that do exist – ESG roles, corporate sustainability, global health consulting – are attracting far more interest than they can absorb.
On top of a crowded market, there is the AI slop problem. Job applications are being flooded with AI-generated cover letters and resumes – one technology publication reported receiving more than 400 applications within 12 hours of posting a single remote role. Recruiters and hiring managers are exhausted, increasingly skeptical, and reaching for shortcuts. Your carefully crafted materials are competing against an avalanche of generic, keyword-stuffed content – which is unfair – but it also means that authentic, specific, human-sounding applications stand out more than they ever have.
In addition, many employers are slowing down or radically reducing hiring. At the same time in many sectors layoffs are growing because of either the desire for profit or the increasing ability of AI tools to partially or fully replace workers, the desire to increase profits even more and that's likely to get worse.
I should also say: for some of you, particularly those with highly specialized technical roles in specific regions, or long careers built entirely within development institutions, finding comparable work as you likely already know is very difficult or even unlikely. That is a hard thing to write, but it is true. Some people in this situation are taking part-time or unrelated work to pay bills while they figure out next steps. Some are going back to school. Some are stepping back to care for family or reassess entirely. All of these are valid – and none of them mean you have failed.
For US-based professionals specifically: in a country where health insurance is tied to employment, finding a "good enough" job – one that covers your family's health costs while you figure out your next move – is not settling. It is taking care of yourself and the people who depend on you. There is no virtue in holding out for the perfect role while your family loses coverage. Plenty of people have taken a stable bridge job, maintained their network, and transitioned into better-fit work eighteen months later. That is a legitimate strategy, not a defeat.
The gig economy is another option some people explore, but it is worth being clear-eyed: freelancing and consulting in development right now is difficult, because the clients who funded that work have largely disappeared. Gig work can provide income and flexibility, but it is not a reliable replacement for a full-time salary in most cases, particularly if you are US-based and carrying the cost of independent health insurance. Go in with realistic expectations.
What follows are six approaches that can potentially help.
The single most common mistake I see from development professionals entering new job markets is describing their experience in sector-specific language that simply does not translate. "Managed multi-stakeholder coordination across a PEPFAR-funded portfolio" is accurate – and nearly meaningless to a corporate HR screener. "Led cross-functional teams managing a $12M portfolio across six countries, coordinating with government ministries, private contractors, and community organizations" lands very differently.
Development professionals carry exceptional skills: program management, budget oversight, monitoring and evaluation, stakeholder coordination across cultures and time zones, navigating bureaucratic complexity under pressure, and – particularly valuable right now – crisis management. These translate directly into roles in:
Of course, translation requires knowing your audience. Wayan Vota's USAID to Corporate Roadmap is a practical toolkit designed specifically for this, built from hundreds of conversations with development professionals making the shift. Melissa Benn also offers a candid breakdown of the private sector pivot, including the mistakes she made – which is exactly the kind of honest guide you need right now.
Do this now:
This is the tip that most career guides mention in passing and then fail to make concrete. So let me be specific.
Upskilling does not mean enrolling in a two-year program or earning a new degree (although for some people that is the right move). It means identifying the one or two skill gaps that are preventing you from being competitive in the roles you actually want to land – and closing them, deliberately, within a defined timeframe.
A few areas where development professionals are finding that targeted upskilling pays off:
I should point out that PCDN's Career Campus is developing AI-powered tools specifically for impact-sector professionals navigating career transitions – some will be available to Career Campus members, and others to the broader community. Worth watching if you are a PCDN member or considering joining.
Do this now:
I know, I know. "Network more" is the advice everyone gives and almost no one finds useful. But the data actually supports it in a specific way here: in a flooded, freeze-heavy market, most positions that get filled are filled through personal connections before they ever get posted publicly. This is frustrating and arguably unfair – but it is the reality of a buyer's market for talent.
What I want to push back on is the exhausted LinkedIn performance networking. Sending 50 cold messages to strangers asking for informational interviews rarely works. What does work – based on what I have seen – is narrower, more genuine relationship-building: reaching out to specific people whose work you have followed and asking a specific question; contributing substantively to communities where hiring managers are actually present; and making yourself visible as a thought leader in a niche that overlaps with where you want to go..One especially valuable thing, when you don't know what to post, is to start sharing content via an opportunity curator that radically helps grow your engagement. Try to put purpose, even if you need a job, at the center of your engagement.
A few communities worth your time:
For local professionals outside the US and Europe: regional networks matter enormously here, and are often underestimated relative to the global platforms. Africa-based development professionals should look at communities like Akina Mama wa Afrika, Africa No Filter, and country-specific professional associations. The funding landscape is shifting in ways that may actually create openings for locally-led organizations – the collapse of large international implementers does not necessarily mean the collapse of locally-rooted work.
Do this now:
Here is something that most career advice glosses over: the AI-generated application flood has made the hiring process genuinely miserable for recruiters – which has, paradoxically, made authentic, specific, human applications more valuable than they have been in years.
The way to stand out right now is not to avoid AI tools (use them for drafts, research, and proofreading if it helps you), but to make sure everything you submit sounds unmistakably like you, contains specific details about the specific organization you are applying to, and connects your actual experience to their actual problems. You can also use a lot of AI tools to edit save tons of time in the application process and still keep it human, but you've got to ensure you do it well.
A few things that can work:
One of the things the Devex pivot stories illustrate clearly is that the most successful transitions are often not the most obvious ones. One 20-year global health veteran pivoted to buying and running a bed-and-breakfast. A procurement specialist moved into supply chain consulting for pharmaceutical companies. A monitoring and evaluation expert joined a data analytics firm working on public health in the US.
I also want to name something important here: in a world on fire, impact work is needed more than ever – and it does not only live in international development. Climate organizations, domestic social services, community foundations, education nonprofits, housing advocacy groups, public health departments, social enterprises, and mission-driven businesses are all doing work that matters. If this disruption is prompting you to reassess, it is worth asking not just "where can I use my skills?" but "what kind of impact do I actually want to have, and where is that possible right now?"
Some genuinely promising adjacent areas, based on where demand is growing:
I should say: not all of these paths are equal for all people, and regional variation matters enormously. What is growing in London or Washington may not be available in Nairobi or Bogotá (and vice versa). The IOJobs guide to the 2025 international organization landscape is blunt about where the UN system now stands, and worth reading before you target multilaterals specifically.
Do this now:
This may be the tip that gets skipped, but it is probably the most important one.
Losing a career in international development is not like losing an ordinary job. Many people in this sector have tied their professional identity, their sense of purpose, and their social communities to this work. The people they served are real. The programs they built had real outcomes. Being told overnight that this work was wasteful, or politically inconvenient, or no longer funded – after years of sacrifice, relocation, and dedication – produces a kind of grief that is entirely legitimate.
Devex's coverage of how people have moved forward in 2026 makes this explicit: "the stages of grief are really important." Professionals who have successfully transitioned tend to be the ones who allowed themselves to process the loss before forcing a premature pivot. This is not soft advice – it is practical. Job searching while in acute grief produces worse results. You send unfocused applications, make decisions from fear, and either accept offers you should not or come across as desperate in interviews.
At the same time, grief without structure can become paralysis. A few things that have helped people in this situation:
Some of you are asking: is it worth waiting to see if things change? Could funding come back?
The honest answer is: some of it may. The 2026 US foreign aid package has reoriented aid around geopolitical competition rather than poverty reduction – which means some programs will return, albeit with different framing and different priorities. Some foundations and bilateral donors outside the US are stepping into gaps a bit. But the scale of what has been lost is not coming back quickly, and betting your career timeline on a policy reversal is a risky strategy.
If you have the financial runway to wait and you have strong reason to believe your specific niche will recover, that is a legitimate choice. For most people, though, building transferable skills and exploring adjacent paths while staying connected to the sector is a more sustainable approach than waiting for a restoration that may take years and may look very different than what existed before.
A few places to start that I have found genuinely useful – across the full spectrum, from staying in the sector to moving adjacent to it:
Still in the Sector:
Going Adjacent:
Career Support and Peer Resources:
For Context and Grounding:
This is a hard time. That is not a platitude – it is an acknowledgment that what has happened to this sector represents a genuine loss, for the people who worked in it and for the people they served. Grief is appropriate. Anger is appropriate. And so, when you are ready, is the work of figuring out what comes next.
I want to be honest about something that sits underneath all of this. I have close friends – people I care about, people who have dedicated their careers to this work – who are now in deep financial uncertainty. That is not an abstraction for me. It is a text message at 11pm. It is a conversation where someone is trying to figure out how to cover next month’s rent. It is watching talented, committed people question whether the work they gave years to ever mattered. And it is happening against a backdrop that makes it feel even more disorienting: a world where the pace of destruction – of institutions, of norms, of hard-won progress – feels genuinely unprecedented. We live on a planet where global inequality remains one of the gravest threats we face, compounded by climate change, collapsing health systems, education gaps, and crises that do not pause because the funding did. I wish we lived in a world that put its policies and resources toward the things that make people’s lives better rather than worse. We are not, right now, living in that world. And that is worth naming – not just as context, but as the source of the grief and rage that many of you are sitting with right now.
Here is what I actually believe, as honestly as I can say it: the sector still exists. It has not disappeared. But it has been severely diminished, and the forces driving that diminishment are not retreating. The reorientation of US foreign policy around military priorities – including the extraordinary resources being directed toward the war between the US and Israel – means that whatever aid survives will increasingly serve geopolitical competition rather than human need. The window for a return to anything resembling the pre-2024 development architecture is not just closed for now. It may not reopen at all in any form we would recognize. I say this not to be bleak for its own sake, but because I think you deserve a clear-eyed view of the terrain rather than a reassuring story that keeps you waiting for a restoration that is not coming.
Policy work is worth naming here too. There are fewer jobs in that space, yes – but they matter more than ever. Building both the policy will and the public will to put people on this planet first is not peripheral work. It is the work. If that is where your skills and your heart are, do not let the scarcity of those roles convince you they are not worth pursuing.
If you are in the middle of this transition, I would genuinely like to hear from you. Feel free to message me directly. What are you finding that works? What resources have been useful or fallen short? What am I missing?
And if you are in a position to hire, mentor, or connect someone coming out of this sector – please do. The talent walking out the door of international development is extraordinary, and most of it will add significant value to wherever it lands next.
