The United States’ (US) new $2 billion commitment to the United Nations (UN) humanitarian aid system may at first glance appear as a positive development in a period of deepening global humanitarian crises. However, the context in which this aid was announced, the political language used, and the strict conditions imposed necessitate viewing this step not as a classic “aid increase,” but rather as a clear call for restructuring and discipline within the UN system. Indeed, the central phrase of the announcement, “Adapt or perish,” is not merely a financial warning; it also constitutes a normative and institutional challenge.
The commitment was announced publicly in Geneva by Jeremy Lewin, the Donald Trump administration’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Foreign Assistance, and Tom Fletcher, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator.[i] While Fletcher emphasized that the $2 billion contribution would “save millions of lives,” Lewin’s speech presented a far harsher and more conditional framework. This difference in rhetoric is, in fact, a clear reflection of the structural tension between the US and the UN.
While the U.S. contributed approximately $17 billion to UN humanitarian aid efforts in 2022, the recently announced $2 billion represents a significant reduction compared to the past. This situation demonstrates that Washington no longer views humanitarian aid as a global public good, but rather as a foreign policy tool closely linked to national interests. Concepts such as “efficiency,” “focus,” and “avoiding duplication,” frequently emphasized in Lewin’s statements, while presented as technical management principles, harbor a strong underlying political selectivity.[ii]
The fact that the new aid package covers only 17 countries is the most concrete example of this selectivity. These countries include Haiti, Syria, and Sudan, while Afghanistan and Yemen, where humanitarian needs are extremely severe, have been completely excluded. Lewin, specifically regarding Afghanistan, claimed there was evidence that UN funds were being diverted to the Taliban and made it clear that US taxpayers’ money would never be allowed to go to “terrorist groups”.[iii]
This approach is in serious conflict with the fundamental principles of humanitarian aid: neutrality, non-discrimination, and needs-based assistance. The logic of the humanitarian aid system is based on protecting the basic rights of civilians, regardless of a country’s political status or the actors who govern it. The complete exclusion of countries like Afghanistan and Yemen not only challenges these principles but also places aid organizations working in the field in an extremely difficult position.
Indeed, the effects of the funding cuts are already being felt concretely. The closure of maternal and infant clinics in Afghanistan, the reduction of food rations for displaced populations in Sudan, and the expectation of a renewed increase in child mortality globally clearly demonstrate the human cost of this new financing architecture. This picture shows that the cuts, justified by the rhetoric of “efficiency,” are in practice weakening the capacity to save lives.
The conditions imposed by the US do not end there. The new funds cannot be used for any projects aimed at combating climate change. Lewin argued that such projects are not “life-saving” and do not align with US national interests.[iv] However, climate change is recognized as a key multiplier that deepens food insecurity, forced migration, and health crises, especially in vulnerable regions. The complete exclusion of this area suggests that a short-term “survival” mindset is being prioritized over long-term crisis prevention capacity.
Allegations that Lewin played a key role in the de facto dismantling of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in the past are also significant in this context. The dismissal of thousands of USAID employees and the rendering of the institution dysfunctional can be interpreted as part of the Trump administration’s desire to make humanitarian aid more centralized, more controlled, and more politically structured. The statement, “The US piggy bank is not open to those who want to return to the old system,” clearly reflects the ideological rigidity of this transformation.
Instead of outright rejecting these criticisms, the UN is adopting a more conciliatory tone. Tom Fletcher and UN officials emphasize that goals such as efficiency, coordination, and waste prevention are already their priorities. Indeed, more effective use of limited resources is in the interest of neither recipients nor donors. However, the problem is that these technical goals are intertwined with political filters.
The current situation is this: the US continues to provide financial support to the UN; however, this support is now more of a conditional foreign policy instrument than a reflection of universal humanitarian responsibility. Country- and issue-based exclusions are narrowing the moral basis for humanitarian aid and forcing the UN system either to adapt to this new order or to face a serious funding gap.
Many actors within the UN are aware of this situation. However, in an environment where global donors are withdrawing and traditional major donors like the US are adopting a highly skeptical stance, the fact that $2 billion is “better than nothing” cannot be denied. Therefore, while trying to protect its fundamental principles, the UN is being forced into a systemic adaptation in order to survive.
This situation also points to the gradual erosion of the principle of multilateralism in the field of humanitarian aid. The US, using its financial power to direct the UN towards specific geographies, specific crisis definitions, and specific priorities, is effectively making institutional decision-making processes dependent on donor preferences. While this may maintain the UN’s operational capacity on the ground in the short term, it risks weakening the organization’s perception as a normative and independent actor in the long term. The increasing transformation of humanitarian aid into a “managed” and “conditional” activity strengthens the possibility that the political sensitivities of major powers, rather than the needs of civilians who are the subjects of the crisis, will become the determining factor.
In this context, the phrase “Adapt or perish” can be read not merely as a threat, but as a brief summary of the structural crisis into which the current global humanitarian aid system is being dragged. This transformation in US-UN relations will elevate the question of how universal humanitarian aid can remain in the coming period to an even more critical level.
[i] Foulkes, Imogen. “US Pledges $2bn for Humanitarian Aid, but Tells UN ‘Adapt or Die’.”, BBC News, www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdj8jr37y98o, (Access Date:11 Jan 2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
