The United States pledges $2 billion to fund UN humanitarian aid, but with strict conditions and major cuts, raising concerns about impartiality and future impact.

united states, humanitarian aid, un funding, $2 billion pledge, aid cuts, trump administration, funding conditions, international relief

US Pledges $2 Billion to UN Humanitarian Programmes With Strict Conditions

The United States has announced a $2 billion (£1.5 billion) pledge to support United Nations (UN humanitarian programmes). However, this funding comes with substantial restrictions and a warning — the UN must “adapt or die” to continue receiving American support.

The Announcement: A Shift in US Aid Policy

The announcement was made in Geneva by Jeremy Lewin, Under Secretary for Foreign Assistance under President Trump, alongside the UN’s emergency relief chief, Tom Fletcher. This pledge comes amid significant cuts in US funding for global humanitarian operations, as well as anticipated reductions from other major donors such as the UK and Germany.

While Tom Fletcher expressed gratitude, highlighting that the funds would save “millions of lives,” the new US contribution amounts to a fraction of previous years. In 2022, the US contributed around $17 billion (£12.6 billion) to the UN’s humanitarian efforts.

Stringent Conditions on US Funding

Unlike previous funding arrangements, the $2 billion pledge will be focused on supporting humanitarian work in just 17 countries, including Haiti, Syria, and Sudan. Notably, Afghanistan and Yemen will receive no aid from this pledge. According to Jeremy Lewin, Washington has evidence that previous UN funds in Afghanistan were diverted to the Taliban, prompting strict exclusion in this round of funding. Lewin stated that “President Trump will never tolerate a penny of taxpayers’ money going to terrorist groups.”

These US funding conditions pose serious challenges for aid agencies operating in excluded regions. For example, essential clinics in Afghanistan have been forced to close, and food rations for displaced persons in Sudan have already been reduced due to earlier funding reductions. Experts warn that global child mortality, which had been improving, is expected to increase this year as a consequence.

Restrictions Extend Beyond Countries

The newly imposed conditions also rule out allocating any US funds toward climate change-related projects. Jeremy Lewin claimed that such initiatives were “not life-saving” and “not in the US interest.”

Lewin, a high-profile Trump ally who oversaw the shutdown of USAID, emphasized a tough stance: the UN must “adapt or die.” He made it clear that US funding would go only to organizations willing to embrace reform, efficiency, and avoid duplication in aid efforts.

Debating the Future of Humanitarian Aid

Both US officials and UN leaders agree that aid must be effective and focused. Fletcher and the broader UN structure assert their commitment to these principles for the benefit of over 200 million people affected by crises worldwide. Yet, the conditions placed on US support raise concerns about neutrality, a cornerstone of humanitarian aid, which dictates that help goes to those most in need, without discrimination.

By excluding specific countries and issues such as climate change, the US risks compromising the impartiality of humanitarian activities. This politicization stands at odds with the historic principles of humanitarian action.

However, given the ongoing financial crisis facing the UN and a highly skeptical primary donor in Washington, many inside the organization concede that $2 billion is still better than nothing—for now.

Further Reading

• Learn more about UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA)
• How Modern US Foreign Policy Affects International Aid
• Original BBC Source