After steep aid cuts in 2025, the US has resumed funding to the UN and other organisations responding to mounting humanitarian crises. But conditions attached reveal a selective approach, and there is concern that other donors are not filling the gaps.<\/p>\n
A year ago, as the United Nations scrambled to restructure after massive donor cuts, its aid chief, Tom Fletcher, was confident of the strides his sector had made toward adapting to the new funding realities. His plans to \u201chyper-prioritise\u201d\u00a0and reduce the number of people receiving aid\u2013 as part of the UN80 reform initiative \u2013 may have helped the former British diplomat reset the UN\u2019s relationship with its largest donor, the United States.<\/p>\n
Doubtful that funding would ever return to previous levels, humanitarians knew that some things had to change.\u00a0\u201cWe were too dependent on grant financing and on the US as a donor,\u201d says Elise Baudot, head of humanitarian funding at the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (Icva), a network of over 190 NGOs. Nonetheless, after Washington and other Western donors cut funding, \u201cthere was first shock, and then the realisation that we can\u2019t fill that hole from other funding sources\u201d, she recalls.<\/p>\n
In recent months, as US funding has resumed, experts say it has set the UN aid sector\u2019s reform plan in motion \u2013 albeit contoured by conditions imposed by the Trump administration, with few signs of other donors stepping in to compensate.<\/p>\n
Setting the stage<\/p>\n
In December, the US announced a $2 billion contribution to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha) for life-saving assistance; a second $1.8bn commitment to the office followed in May. The aggregate paled in comparison to the funding needs for 2026, estimated at nearly $35bn, and to Washington\u2019s $10bn in donations to UN agencies in recent years. Still, Fletcher expressed his deep gratitude to the Trump administration\u2019s aid envoy, Jeremy Lewin, for\u00a0the renewed financial engagement.<\/p>\n
The pledges came with conditions, including disbursement to a select number of Ocha\u2019s crisis-impacted countries, excluding Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen, and required the UN to report<\/a>\u00a0any misuse or diversion of the aid to the US, according to the confidential memorandum of understanding seen by the online media Devex.<\/p>\n \u201cThis US administration has been very clear about how they\u2019re going to fund humanitarian operations,\u201d explains Baudot. That includes giving a central role to Ocha for distributing funds, \u201cto provide a pipeline of quick-to-spend funding under its reset plan for hyper-prioritised life-saving needs\u201d, she adds. Months earlier, the White House had entrusted a small team led by billionaire Elon Musk to dismantle USAid, which it accused of inefficiency and wastefulness.<\/p>\n Lewin \u2013\u00a0 who had been part of Musk\u2019s Doge crew \u2013 and the State Department were convinced that channelling funds through Ocha\u2019s pooled funds mechanism would help cut bureaucracy, allowing the money to reach local organisations more directly while providing a transparent and accountable system.<\/p>\n Pooled funds and agency contributions<\/p>\n Damian Lilly,\u00a0 a humanitarian consultant and former Ocha and agency official, concedes that US funding has helped operationalise certain UN reform plans, including empowering UN humanitarian coordinators and directing money toward areas with the greatest needs. But other reform targets, such as localisation \u2013 ensuring that more funding is managed by local NGOs \u2013 have not materialised, and Lilly says it is not solely the White House’s fault. \u201cThe imperative \u2013 self-imposed by Ocha \u00a0\u2013 was to spend the funds quickly with the rationale that \u2018the quicker we spend the money, the more chance that we will get more money\u2019,\u201d he explains. But the short six-month timeline for disbursing the funds\u00a0made it difficult for local NGOs to absorb the money directly, leading to the money instead being channelled through large international organisations and international NGOs, thereby emboldening their roles in the process. \u201cIt was quite irresponsible and inappropriate to give money just for six months and the next day, the assistance stops,\u201d Lilly adds.<\/p>\n At a press briefing last week, Adhan Effendi, South Sudan country director for the World Food Programme (WFP), described the $32.5m in combined funding received from Ocha pooled funds this year as \u201ca drop in the ocean\u201d. He said that the UN food agency\u2019s budget was expected to run out\u00a0within the next two months, leaving hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people without access to food assistance.<\/p>\n Lilly explains that having US funding channelled through Ocha now, rather than directly to the UN organisations \u2013 including the WFP, the UN refugee agency, the UNHCR, and the UN\u2019s children\u2019s fund, Unicef, which previously received over two-thirds of UN aid funding \u2013 has upended the humanitarian power structure. \u201cMany of them are now wondering: \u2018why do we have Ocha as a gatekeeper?\u2019\u201d he says.<\/p>\n \u201cFinancially, Ocha has turned into a four- or five-billion-dollar organisation, larger than the International Organization for Migration, and nearly as large as UNHCR, Unicef and WFP,\u201d Lilly notes, underscoring that, unlike the specialised agencies, it has limited staff to take on its expanded role, \u201ceven if it’s limited to processing all the US funding.\u201d<\/p>\n More recently, Washington has pledged\u00a0\u201cmacro awards<\/a>\u201d directly to UN agencies \u2013 bringing its total UN aid commitments to date since late 2025 to nearly $5bn. In June, the US allocated nearly $220m to Unicef and $800m to the WFP, a fraction of the $10bn the US contributed to the food aid agency at its peak in 2024. The State Department said backing agencies with \u201crigorous performance standards and deliver measurable results\u201d would incentivise the wider aid sector to adapt to the expectations of US taxpayers. \u201cThe US Department of State has also been clear on their continued commitment to supporting this new model,\u201d the spokesperson said.<\/p>\n US funding reaches Geneva organisations<\/p>\n Since early June, the pace of US aid announcements has picked up, broadening support to the wider aid sector. Amid rising concerns over disease outbreaks, just months after Washington pulled out of the World Health Organization, US pledges have included $50m to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (Cepi) and\u00a0the release of $661m in funding to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria that had been approved by lawmakers, but which had been withheld for months. Similarly, the US Congress announced that $600m in arrears would be paid to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, on\u00a0condition<\/a> that its funds wouldn\u2019t go to the WHO.<\/p>\n Some $242m in direct Ebola response funding for the Democratic Republic of Congo was also announced<\/a>, as talks between US and DRC officials on critical minerals from the worst-hit northeast region were affected\u00a0by\u00a0the country\u2019s largest outbreak to date.<\/p>\n Over $200m was also promised in July to both the International Committee of the Red Cross, which had been forced in 2025 to cut its budget by 17 per cent<\/a>, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, for disaster relief and humanitarian aid. It is not clear when these are expected to be delivered.<\/p>\n Faith-based groups win<\/p>\n But some of the biggest winners in the Trump administration\u2019s renewed aid strategy\u00a0have been faith-based groups. Earlier this summer, Catholic Relief Services was awarded $240m in humanitarian funding. And then this month, the State Department announced<\/a> nearly $2bn in \u201chistoric\u201d financing to groups led by London-based international NGO World Vision, as well as US-based organisations Compassion International and Samaritan\u2019s Purse, to support 2,500 faith-based hospitals in 17 countries, as well as emergency and humanitarian assistance.<\/p>\n
\u00a0
Read more: A year after its launch, aid experts ask: humanitarian reset or rollback?<\/a><\/p>\n
\u00a0
An Ocha spokesperson confirmed that the \u201cfirst tranche of funds ($2bn) has been fully received and allocated by Ocha\u201d, while the signing and finalising of funding agreements for the second, $1.8bn instalment \u201cis proceeding as expected and will be completed shortly\u201d.<\/p>\n