A significant new $2bn (£1.5bn) pledge of United States humanitarian aid has been met with deep concern by experts, who warn it could force the United Nations into a shrunken, less flexible system dominated by Washington's political priorities.
'Adapt, Shrink or Die': The Stringent US Terms
Announced this week by the US State Department, the funding comes laden with demands. Officials stated the UN must "adapt, shrink or die" by implementing changes and cutting waste. Crucially, the money must be channelled through a single pooled fund under the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha), rather than going directly to individual agencies like UNICEF or the World Food Programme.
Furthermore, the US has stipulated that the aid can only be used in 17 priority countries of its choosing. This list excludes nations experiencing profound humanitarian catastrophes, notably Afghanistan and Yemen, where needs are among the most severe in the world.
Experts Decry 'Subservient' UN and Political Priorities
Aid analysts have reacted with alarm to the conditions. Independent researcher Themrise Khan described the approach as "a despicable way of looking at humanitarianism". She criticised the UN for praising the Trump administration's pledge as "generous" despite its strings.
"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," Khan said. "For me, that is the nail in the coffin."
The 17 countries on the US list include several where Washington has clear strategic interests, such as Sudan, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and several in Latin America. Ronny Patz, an analyst specialising in UN finances, noted that pre-selecting countries "shows they have very clear political priorities for this money".
A Shrunken System and Uncertain Funds
Patz expressed fear that Washington's demands "solidifies a massively shrunk UN humanitarian system". He raised a critical question: if a new crisis erupts in a non-priority region next year, would the US allow its money to be used for the response?
Other experts questioned whether the pledged amount is sufficient or even guaranteed. Thomas Byrnes of MarketImpact consultancy noted the $2bn is significantly less than the $3.38bn the US gave the UN in 2025 under the previous Biden administration. He called the announcement "a carefully staged political announcement that obscures more than it reveals".
Byrnes also suggested that routing funds through Ocha may be less about partnership and more about centralising control, creating a single point of pressure for the US. Both he and Patz cautioned that the money is only promised, not yet given, and could be withheld if the UN fails to meet US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's demands to "cut bloat, remove duplication".
The pledge follows a year of deep cuts to aid budgets by the US and European nations, making new funding a source of relief. However, the stringent terms attached have sparked a fierce debate about the future of impartial humanitarian aid and the autonomy of the international system.
