The Trump administration will always couch even its most reasonable decisions in the most dramatic terms possible, and so it was with a State Department announcement that the U.S. would be sending a significantly smaller humanitarian aid package to the United Nations: “Individual U.N. agencies will need to adapt, shrink or die.”

The $2 billion announced last week is down from $3.8 billion in 2025 and a major reduction from America’s contributions under President Joe Biden, which peaked at $17 billion in 2022. It’s easy to write this off as a shortsighted America First policy, but in reality Washington is trying to channel the money to better advance national priorities and maximize effectiveness on the ground.

Jeremy Lewin, who oversees humanitarian funding at the State Department, calls the $2 billion “an initial anchor commitment” and expresses hope that it’s “only the beginning” of a new funding model for U.N. aid.

Importantly, the money comes with conditions, including a list of 17 countries that have been selected by the Trump administration to receive aid. Syria made the cut — no doubt helped by Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s friendly November visit to the White House — while the U.N. has been instructed not to give any U.S. money to Afghanistan and Yemen, lest it fall into the hands of terrorists.

Even after scaling back support, the U.S. is expected to retain its status in 2026 as the world’s biggest aid donor, which makes it hard for other countries to whine about the cutbacks. The U.N. secretary-general has instructed agencies under his umbrella to come up with plans to reduce their staffs by 20 percent.

Undoubtedly, the U.N. could benefit from cutting. For example, the World Food Program, U.N. Refugee Agency and U.N. International Children’s Emergency Fund address the same crises in Sudan and Afghanistan.

The U.N. has also been the subject of repeated scandals. In 2024, the U.S. wisely cut off funding for the Palestinian relief arm (UNRWA) amid evidence that some of its workers participated in the Oct. 7 terror attacks. The U.N. also refuses to acknowledge China’s reckless role as the originator of COVID-19.

There’s always a risk of overcorrection. A rollback of humanitarian aid in 2026 risks worsening refugee crises that America is directly affected by, including relief provided to fleeing Venezuelans. It also comes as the administration has slashed other direct aid programs, including dissolving the U.S. Agency for International Development — which oversaw public health programs around the world — and ending bilateral aid support to countries such as South Africa.

Countries, or billionaire philanthropists, howling about the cuts can always step up and fill the void. If China wants to act like a world leader, there’s nothing stopping Xi Jinping from chipping in more to support institutions like the U.N.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/01/united-nations-funding-aid-trump-peacekeeping/

— The Washington Post