US conditions on $2bn aid pledge could force UN to submit to Washington, experts warn

“The Daily Baku” reports that, after a year marked by sharp reductions in humanitarian funding from the US and Europe, the promise of fresh money has offered some reassurance. However, experts say the strict conditions attached to the funding raise serious concerns about how aid will be governed and distributed.

When the US state department unveiled the pledge on Tuesday, it demanded that the UN overhaul its operations, warning it must “adapt, shrink or die” by cutting waste and restructuring how assistance is delivered. Washington also insisted the funds be channelled through a central pooled mechanism managed by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (Ocha), rather than being allocated directly to individual UN agencies.

In addition, the US specified that the money could only be used in 17 countries selected by Washington, leaving out nations facing acute humanitarian emergencies such as Afghanistan and Yemen.

Themrise Khan, an independent researcher focused on aid systems, described the approach as deeply troubling. She criticised the UN for publicly praising Donald Trump and portraying the pledge as “generous” despite the heavy restrictions attached.

According to Khan, the episode highlights how dependent the UN has become on US influence. She argued that the organisation is increasingly subordinating its humanitarian principles to the priorities of a single powerful donor, a shift she described as potentially fatal to the system’s independence.

The list of priority countries includes several of the world’s most fragile states where the US has strong political interests, such as Sudan, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, alongside a number of Latin American nations.

Ronny Patz, an independent analyst specialising in UN financing, said the advance publication of a fixed country list revealed clear political calculations behind the funding. He warned that restricting where the money can be spent risks locking the UN into a dramatically reduced humanitarian role.

Patz added that if a major crisis were to emerge in a country outside the US-approved list, it was unclear whether Washington would allow UN agencies to respond using the pledged funds.

Questions have also been raised about whether the $2bn will be sufficient. Thomas Byrnes, chief executive of MarketImpact, which tracks humanitarian funding trends, noted that the figure is significantly lower than the $3.38bn the US contributed to the UN in 2025 under the Biden administration.

Byrnes described the announcement as a carefully choreographed political move that masks deeper cuts. While acknowledging the funds are preferable to none, he said their impact would be limited given other US decisions, including cancelling $5bn in congressionally approved foreign aid and proposing to end support for UN peacekeeping operations, for which the US already owes $1.5bn.

He also suggested that routing the money through Ocha may be less about cooperation and more about consolidating control, allowing Washington to exert pressure through a single UN body.

Patz echoed those concerns, questioning whether the funds would be released at all if the UN failed to meet the expectations laid out by US secretary of state Marco Rubio to reduce bureaucracy and eliminate duplication.

“This is a promise, not a payment,” Patz said. “Caution is warranted.”