Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
The United States announced a $2 billion pledge to the UN on Monday. humanitarian aid as President Donald Trump’s administration cuts U.S. foreign aid, warns The United Nations agencies, they must “adapt, shrink or die” in an era of new financial realities.
The money represents only a small fraction of what the United States has contributed in the past, but reflects what the administration considers a still generous amount that will maintain America’s status as the world’s largest humanitarian donor.
“This new model will better share the burden of UN humanitarian work with other developed countries and will require the UN to reduce overload, eliminate duplication, and commit to powerful new mechanisms for impact, accountability, and oversight,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on social media.
The pledge creates a general fund from which money will be distributed to agencies and priorities, a key part of U.S. demands for drastic changes at the U.N. that have alarmed many aid workers and led to severe cuts to programs and services.
The $2 billion is just a fraction of traditional U.S. humanitarian funding for U.N.-coordinated programs, which has reached $17 billion a year in recent years, according to U.N. data. U.S. officials say only $8 billion to $10 billion has been given in voluntary contributions. The United States also pays billions in annual dues related to its UN membership.
“The piggy bank is not open to organizations that just want to go back to the old system,” Jeremy Lewin, the State Department’s foreign aid official, said at a news conference Monday in Geneva. “President Trump has made it clear that the system is dead. »
The State Department said that “every UN agency will have to adapt, shrink or die.” Critics say Western aid cuts have been shortsighted, pushed millions into hunger, displacement or disease and damaged U.S. soft power around the world.
This decision caps a year of crisis for many United Nations organizations, notably those responsible for refugees, migration and food aid. The Trump administration has already cut U.S. foreign aid by billions of dollars, prompting agencies to slash spending, aid projects and thousands of jobs. Other traditional Western donors have also cut spending.
Receive national news daily
Get the day’s top news, politics, business and current affairs headlines delivered to your inbox once a day.
The United States’ commitment to U.N. aid programs — the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid and largest recipient of U.S. humanitarian aid — takes shape in a preliminary agreement with the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, or OCHA, led by Tom Fletcher, a former diplomat and British government official.
Fletcher, who has spent the last year lobbying U.S. officials not to abandon U.N. funding altogether, was optimistic about signing the deal in Geneva.
“It’s a very, very important historic contribution. And a month ago I would have imagined that this figure would have been zero,” he told reporters. “And so I think before I worry about what we don’t have, I’d like to look at the millions of people whose lives will be saved, whose lives will be better because of this contribution, and start there.”
Even as the United States cuts its humanitarian contributions, needs have exploded around the world: famine has been recorded this year in parts of conflict-ridden Sudan and Gaza, and floods, drought and natural disasters that many scientists attribute to climate change have claimed many lives or driven thousands from their homes.
These cuts will have major implications for UN-affiliated organizations like the International Organization for Migration, the World Food Program and the refugee agency UNHCR. They have already received billions less from the United States this year than in the Biden administration’s annual allocations — or even during Trump’s first term.
The idea now is that Fletcher’s office — whose goal is to improve efficiency — will become a conduit for U.S. and other aid money that can be redirected to those agencies, rather than scattered U.S. contributions to a variety of individual appeals for help.
Asked by reporters whether the American language of “adapt or die” worried him, Fletcher replied: “If the choices are adapt or die, I choose to adapt. »
The United States seeks to consolidate its aid
U.S. officials say the $2 billion is just an initial outlay to help fund OCHA’s annual fundraising appeal. Fletcher, seeing the upheaval in the aid landscape, has already scaled back demand this year. Other traditional U.N. donors, such as Britain, France, Germany and Japan, have cut their aid allocations and sought reforms this year.
“This humanitarian reset at the United Nations should deliver more aid with less taxpayer money – providing more targeted, results-oriented assistance aligned with U.S. foreign policy,” said U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz.
Crucially, the changes will help establish funding reserves that can be allocated either to specific crises or to countries in need. A total of 17 countries will be initially targeted, including Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Syria and Ukraine.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres also welcomed the announcement, saying “every dollar counts”.
Two of the world’s most desperate countries, Afghanistan and Yemen, are not included, with U.S. officials citing the diversion of aid to Taliban and Houthi rebels as concerns about resuming contributions.
Also not mentioned on the list are the Palestinian territories, which officials say will be covered by money from Trump’s still-incomplete Gaza peace plan.
The U.N. plan, months in the making, stems from Trump’s long-held view that the global organization shows great promise but has failed to deliver and has — in his eyes — strayed too far from its original mandate of saving lives while undermining U.S. interests, promoting radical ideologies and encouraging wasteful and irresponsible spending.
“No one wants to receive aid. No one wants to live in a UNHCR camp because they have been displaced by the conflict,” Lewin said. “The best thing we can do to reduce costs, and President Trump recognizes this and this is why he is the peace president, is to end armed conflict and allow communities to return to peace and prosperity.”
Lee reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Farnoush Amiri contributed from New York.
