More on "Adapt, Shrink, or Die" : Shared by Tom McDermott

Many UN staff and observers question why Tom Fletcher and OCHA are presenting their deal with the Trump administration as a victory. The answer extends beyond OCHA's consolidation of control over US humanitarian funding, though this is undoubtedly part of the calculation. 

The larger context reveals a starker reality: the entire UN humanitarian system faced the very real prospect that the US would abandon multilateral humanitarian funding entirely, opting instead to bypass the UN through bilateral country-level arrangements, in line with Trump's overall 'transactional' approach to foreign affairs.

Against that baseline of potential total disengagement, $2 billion routed through OCHA mechanisms represents survival, not success—a distinction Fletcher's "a month ago, I would have anticipated the number would have been zero" makes painfully clear. The deal preserves UN relevance in humanitarian coordination while ceding unprecedented donor control over allocation decisions, transforming OCHA from an independent coordinator into what one State Department official explicitly described as controlling "the spigot" on behalf of Washington's priorities.

Tom

Adapt, Shrink, or Die: What the US-OCHA Deal Actually Means

Author: Thomas Byrnes

Publication: LinkedIn (Tom's Aid & Dev Dispatches)

Date: December 30, 2025

Click here for the article

Summary:

On December 29, 2025, the United States signed an MOU with OCHA committing $2 billion to UN humanitarian funds for 2026, representing an 85% reduction from 2024 funding levels of $14.7 billion. The author argues this represents not a temporary funding cycle but a structural collapse driven by the end of the post-Cold War "peace dividend," as Western governments redirect resources toward defense spending (NATO now targeting 5% of GDP) amid rising debt-to-GDP ratios. The fiscal space that enabled humanitarian sector growth from $7 billion in 1998 to $46 billion in 2022 no longer exists. 

The agreement covers 17 countries but explicitly excludes Afghanistan, Yemen, and Gaza—leaving approximately 47 million people in the world's worst crises without US humanitarian support. 

The funding will flow through OCHA-managed pooled funds (CERF and Country-Based Pooled Funds) rather than direct bilateral grants to agencies, representing a fundamental shift in US aid architecture. A senior State Department official stated OCHA will "control the spigot," while agencies have been told to "adapt, shrink, or die." 

The $2 billion divided across 17 countries averages approximately $118 million per country. For context, Sudan alone received $1.9 billion in 2025.

The US currently owes more than $3 billion in unpaid UN dues (approximately $1.5 billion in regular budget arrears and $1.5-2.4 billion for peacekeeping), making the $2 billion pledge for UN humanitarian programmes subject to credibility concerns until actually disbursed. 

The analysis warns that efficiency gains through AI adoption, logistics consolidation, and expanded cash programming, while necessary, cannot close a gap this large, and that infrastructure thresholds—logistics capacity, cold chains, airlift systems—will break if funding falls below certain levels.

Quotes:

"A month ago, I would have anticipated the number would have been zero." (Tom Fletcher, OCHA)

"[The US] remains the most generous nation in the world." (Marco Rubio)

"Agencies must 'adapt, shrink, or die.'" (State Department announcement)

"The old system was 'an unaccountable morass of projectized grants.' Under the new model, OCHA will 'control the spigot.'" (Jeremy Lewin, State Department)

"The USA owes more than $2 billion of assessed funding to the UN budget to now pledge $2 billion in UN humanitarian aid, pledges that it will likely not honor unless its demands are met... it's more show than substance until the funding has actually been disbursed." (Ronny Patz, UN financing expert)

"For every dollar that went to Taliban taxes, we're cutting seventy dollars in aid to starving Afghans." (Thomas Byrnes)

"This isn't humanitarian response. It's palliative care for crises we've decided not to treat." (Thomas Byrnes)