UN indeependence is at risk.
Author: Kaamil Ahmed
Publication: The Guardian
Date: January 1, 2026
Click here for the article
The Trump administration announced a $2 billion humanitarian aid pledge with stringent conditions that experts warn will reshape the UN humanitarian system according to US political priorities.
The State Department mandated that funds must flow through the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha) rather than individual agencies, and specified 17 priority countries excluding major crises like Afghanistan and Yemen. The US demanded the UN "adapt, shrink or die" by implementing changes and eliminating waste. The pledge represents a decrease from the $3.38 billion provided by the Biden administration in 2025, and comes alongside $5 billion in foreign assistance cuts and proposals to end peacekeeping mission support. Aid experts express concern that the conditions will create a shrunken, less flexible humanitarian system dominated by Washington's interests, with uncertainty about whether funds will materialize if UN reforms don't meet US expectations."It's a despicable way of looking at humanitarianism and humanitarian aid." — Themrise Khan, independent researcher on aid systems
"It also points to the fact that the UN system itself is now so subservient to the American system – that it is literally bowing down to just one power without actually being more objective in how it views humanitarianism and humanitarian aid. For me, that is the nail in the coffin." — Themrise Khan
"The fact that they are announcing a selected list of countries in advance shows they have very clear political priorities for this money." — Ronny Patz, independent analyst specialising in UN finances
"If there is a new humanitarian crisis breaking out in some region of the world next year that they haven't prioritised funding for, it's not clear that they are willing to let the UN respond with US money." — Ronny Patz
"This is a carefully staged political announcement that obscures more than it reveals." — Thomas Byrnes, chief executive of MarketImpact
"I would be cautious. This is $2bn promised, but not $2bn given." — Ronny Patz
Forgetting the huge downward spiral in the value of US provided funds, I am intrigued that the US requires their 'contribution' to have to be routed through OCHA. Presumably this means that OCHA will take its slice of the whole pie before what is left is routed through each of the specialised agencies like UNICEF, who will need to take a 'normal' percentage. This is double-entry economics and begs the question as to whether the US President will benefit when he is self-elected to be a Trustee of OCHA ?
ReplyDelete