US ‘adapt, shrink or die’ terms for $2bn aid pot will mean UN bowing down to Washington, say experts | Aid
Here’s how the $2bn (£1.5bn) in aid the US pledged this week could have been met: “brave and assertive” Aid experts fear this could be the “nail in the coffin” in a move to a scaled-back, less flexible aid system dominated by Washington’s political priorities, despite being delivered by the UN.
After a year of deep cuts to aid budgets by the United States and European countries, the announcement of new money for the humanitarian aid system has provided some relief, but experts are deeply concerned about the demands the United States is imposing on how the money should be managed and where it can go.
When the US state department announced its commitment on Tuesday, it said the UN must “adapt, shrink or die” by implementing changes and eliminating waste, and demanded that the money be channeled through a fund housed within the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha) rather than through individual agencies.
It is also envisaged that the money will be used for 17 priority countries selected by the USA, excluding those experiencing deep humanitarian crises such as Afghanistan and Yemen.
Themrise Khan, an independent researcher on aid systems, said: “This is a despicable view of humanitarianism and humanitarian aid.”
He criticized the way the UN praised Donald Trump and the commitment given despite the many conditions presented to him as “generous”.
“This also points to the fact that the UN system itself is now so dependent on the American system that it is literally subservient to a single power, while not being more objective in its view of humanitarian aid and humanitarian aid,” Khan said. “For me, this is the nail in the coffin.”
The 17 priority countries include the world’s most desperate countries in which the United States has political interests; Some of these include Sudan, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as some Latin American countries.
Independent analyst Ronny Patz, who specializes in UN funding, said: “The fact that they have announced a select list of countries in advance shows that they have very clear political priorities for this money.”
He said he was concerned that Washington’s demands on where the money could be spent would “entrench the greatly diminished U.N. humanitarian system.”
“If a new humanitarian crisis breaks out in some part of the world next year for which they have not prioritized financing, it is not clear whether they would allow the UN to respond with US money,” Patz said.
There are also concerns that the amount of money will not be enough. Thomas Byrnes, managing director of humanitarian industry consultancy MarketImpact, has been tracking aid cuts over the past year and said the $2 billion was significantly less than the $3.38 billion in funding the U.S. gave to the U.N. in 2025, all of which was provided under the previous Biden administration.
“This is a carefully crafted political announcement that hides more than it reveals,” Byrnes said.
He said the contribution was better than nothing but would have limited impact in the context of other U.S. decisions already approved by Congress, including a proposal to cut $5 billion in foreign aid and end support for peacekeeping missions that have been approved as “stimulated, weaponized and wasteful spending.” Currently owes $1.5 billion to the United Nations.
Byrnes suggested that channeling money through Ocha may be less a partnership than an attempt to centralize control and have a UN body that can make demands on how aid should be distributed.
Patz shared this concern and expressed concern about whether the money would be realized if the UN failed to meet the expectations set by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “cutting the bloat, removing duplicates”.
“I would be careful,” he said. “This $2 billion was promised, but $2 billion was not given.”
