In a controversial maneuver, the Trump administration has initiated a cost-cutting drive affecting various branches of the US government, particularly targeting foreign aid. This move, spearheaded by tech billionaire Elon Musk, has alarmed humanitarian organizations worldwide, including prestigious institutions like the UN Refugee Agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross. These organizations recently received a set of 36 queries from the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB), many of which pose significant ethical and operational challenges.
Notably, one question asks whether the organizations have ties to communism, prompting concerns about the US’s commitment to global humanitarian efforts. This inquiry reflects an alarming trend that critics argue indicates the Trump administration’s intent to distance itself from the United Nations and curtail humanitarian support altogether. Already, the US has seen a dramatic withdrawal from global agreements, exemplified by its exit from the World Health Organization on the first day of Trump’s second term.
Adding to the alarm, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently announced the termination of the majority of programs administered by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). This development corresponds with a widespread perception among the American public that the country overspends on foreign assistance, despite the US historically contributing around 40% of global humanitarian aid funding.
Among the various questions posed to UN aid agencies, inquiries about affiliations with entities associated with countries deemed antagonistic by Washington, such as China, Russia, Cuba, and Iran, have raised eyebrows. Such questions complicate relationships, particularly as many aid organizations, including UNICEF and the World Food Programme, often work with diverse international partners and strive to support marginalized communities in crisis.
Experts in humanitarian policy, including Professor Karl Blanchet from Geneva University’s Centre for Humanitarian Studies, argue that this line of questioning sets the stage for the US to withdraw from the UN ecosystem entirely. As he articulated, “It’s multilateralism versus America first – these are two ends of a spectrum.”
The nature of some questions frustrates aid workers who feel they are placed in a no-win scenario, likening it to being asked an impossible question with no good answer. One unnamed aid worker criticized this, stating, “It’s like being asked ‘have you stopped beating your child, yes or no?'” Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights office decided not to engage with the questionnaire, citing its binary structure and limited opportunity for context.
Furthermore, some questions suggest the administration’s economic priorities, inquiring about projects that could impact US supply chains or the procurement of rare earth minerals. This shift could redefine how humanitarian aid is distributed and operated under US auspices.
As humanitarian organizations brace for the potential implications of this directive, many express a need for clarity and dialogue. However, the prevailing sentiment reflects a growing apprehension regarding the US government’s future role in global humanitarian assistance.