US $2bn Aid Pledge to UN Raises Concerns Over Political Control and Conditionality
The $2 billion (£1.5 billion) aid pledge announced by the United States this week has been described by the UN as “bold and ambitious,” but aid experts warn it could further centralise Washington’s influence over global humanitarian assistance and constrain the flexibility of UN operations.
Following a year of significant aid budget cuts by the US and European countries, the injection of funds brings some relief to the strained humanitarian system. However, experts are alarmed by the conditions attached to the funding, including strict guidelines on how it should be managed and which countries are eligible.
The US State Department stipulated that the funds must be channelled through a pooled fund under the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) rather than being directed to individual agencies. The funding is also restricted to 17 priority countries chosen by the US, excluding some of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, such as Afghanistan and Yemen.
Independent researcher Themrise Khan criticised the arrangement, saying:
“It’s a despicable way of looking at humanitarian aid. The UN’s praise of this as ‘generous’ ignores the numerous conditions attached. The system is now bowing to one power, rather than being objective about global humanitarian needs. For me, this is the nail in the coffin.”
The 17 priority nations include countries where the US has strategic political interests, such as Sudan, Haiti, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, along with several Latin American states.
Ronny Patz, an analyst on UN finances, noted:
“Announcing a pre-selected list of countries highlights the political priorities behind this funding. If a new crisis emerges outside these countries, it’s unclear whether the US will allow UN aid to respond.”
There are also concerns that the $2 billion pledge is smaller than previous contributions. Thomas Byrnes, CEO of MarketImpact, highlighted that the US contributed $3.38 billion to the UN in 2025 under the previous administration, meaning this year’s pledge represents a significant drop. Byrnes described the announcement as politically staged, noting it could obscure broader cuts, including a $5 billion reduction in foreign aid and a potential halt to UN peacekeeping funding.
The decision to channel the money exclusively through OCHA has been interpreted by some experts as a move to centralise control, allowing the US to dictate conditions and demand “cuts, efficiency, and elimination of duplication” from the UN. Patz warned:
“This is $2 billion promised, not necessarily $2 billion delivered. The funds may depend on whether the UN meets Washington’s strict expectations.”
While the pledge is better than nothing, analysts stress it may limit the UN’s ability to respond to unforeseen humanitarian crises, further tightening the grip of political considerations on global aid.
