In a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, the Trump administration has initiated plans to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and reduce foreign assistance.
This move has led to the termination of at least 5,341 foreign aid projects, including approximately 211 awards to various United Nations agencies responsible for humanitarian and development programs around the world.
Experts warn that this decision will not only impact immediate humanitarian needs but could also diminish U.S. influence on the global stage.
Since 1945, the United Nations has required member states to contribute to its regular budget, with assessments based on gross national income and population.
For the fiscal year 2024, the U.S. assessment was set at 22% of the overall budget and 27% of the peacekeeping budget, despite Congress capping U.S. contributions at 25% since 1995.
Additionally, many member states provide voluntary contributions to specific UN programs, with some agencies relying entirely on these discretionary funds.
In fiscal year 2023, the United States contributed over $13 billion to the UN, where 24% was assessed and 75% was voluntary, making the U.S. the largest single donor to the World Food Programme (WFP) with a contribution of $3.1 billion that year.
USAID funding is aimed at specific programs and outcomes and is closely tracked, supporting vital UN initiatives such as food aid and vaccine distribution.
This financial backing has historically reinforced the international order that aligns with U.S. objectives, helping to manage global challenges before they escalate.
On February 4, the Trump administration issued an executive order that mandated a review of U.S. support to international organizations, including the UN.
This review is ongoing and primarily focuses on State Department funding that supports UN operations, with preliminary indications suggesting significant cuts.
Already, both voluntary and assessed contributions from USAID have been reduced prior to the publication of the administration’s budget recommendations.
Experts stress the importance of evaluating the potential repercussions of these funding cuts on U.S. influence within the UN system and on global humanitarian efforts.
The humanitarian impact of reducing U.S. aid is already evident, and experts estimate that the cuts to USAID’s voluntary contributions may have long-lasting consequences.
Although the administration has promised to retain some vital assistance, approximately 49 lifesaving awards were revoked, totaling at least $529 million, which could have serious implications for vulnerable populations.
Critically, some cuts target programs addressing gender-based violence, with $2.5 million cut for UN programs in Haiti and $20 million for victims in Venezuela.
Given that violence against women significantly contributes to migration patterns to the U.S., this reduction may have indirect domestic repercussions.
Moreover, cuts to U.S. funding for global health initiatives could jeopardize pandemic preparedness and response efforts.
There’s been a notable $6 million reduction for health coordination in Gaza, which is particularly concerning following a polio outbreak in 2024.
Furthermore, a $500 million cut to UNAIDS is projected to create shortages in essential commodities for the prevention and treatment of HIV.
Additionally, the administration has scaled back programs designed to bolster countries’ capacities for disaster response and natural disaster forecasting.
The affected programs, especially in the Pacific region, are strategically relevant as the U.S. competes with China for influence in those areas.
The geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. aid pullback extend beyond immediate humanitarian crises, affecting U.S. leadership in multilateral organizations like the UN.
Funding reductions weaken U.S. influence to shape the UN system and limit its ability to exert pressure for reforms and accountability.
This diminishment of influence could lead to a perception of U.S. unreliability, particularly in regions where the U.S. has used aid to stabilize relations and promote peace.
With the U.S. reducing financial commitments, rivals like China could seize the opportunity to expand their influence in the Global South.
China has been positioning itself as a champion for developing countries, highlighting any gaps left by U.S. funding cuts as opportunities to present alternative initiatives.
The United States has traditionally countered such narratives by showcasing its substantial humanitarian investments and commitment to global health through programs like PEPFAR.
Without these investments, U.S. soft power may suffer, as well as the longstanding public favor it has enjoyed in many developing nations.
U.S. funding has often been a leverage tool in negotiations for reform and in reaching ceasefire agreements, tying financial contributions to specific UN-led initiatives.
Historically, U.S. aid flows have accompanied peace agreements, providing necessary support to drive stability in post-conflict regions; cuts could undermine this strategic tool.
For instance, projected assistance requirements for Gaza have been estimated at $3.6 billion in 2025, with the U.S. expected to contribute significantly to these needs.
Losing that funding would limit U.S.—and Israeli—options for using financial aid as leverage in political negotiations.
Other humanitarian actors, including NGOs and the private sector, may be hesitant to fill such gaps due to security and operational risks in conflict zones.
Experts recommend that U.S. policymakers carefully consider the broader implications of these funding cuts while pursuing their objectives.
The current administration must evaluate how assistance reductions align with U.S. interests in competing with global rivals like China and meeting pressing geopolitical realities.
Cutting assistance could further challenge the already strained UN humanitarian and global health frameworks.
Policymakers should also leverage budget cuts to push for desired transparency and reform initiatives within the UN system.
This influx of budget review could act as a catalyst for long-overdue reforms in humanitarian programs and agencies, providing an opportunity for the U.S. to drive change.
A focus on priority responses in conflict zones like Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine is essential, particularly as the merger of humanitarian efforts into the State Department unfolds.
Retaining USAID operational staff who play critical roles in negotiations can preserve vital skills in humanitarian diplomacy as the merger proceeds.
Lastly, upcoming UN leadership elections should be strategically prioritized, ensuring that the U.S. continues to influence key positions within agencies like WFP and UNICEF to maintain its leadership role.
Despite current cuts and shifts in funding strategy, the U.S. retains a critical role in shaping the future of humanitarian responses and global health support.
As the international landscape evolves, the United States must navigate these changes carefully to uphold its interests and global standing.
image source from：https://www.csis.org/analysis/usaid-cuts-weaken-us-influence-united-nations
