US Targets UN Aid Groups with Controversial Questionnaire

Recent inquiries from the US Office of Management and Budget to UN humanitarian agencies suggest a potential reduction in US involvement in international aid efforts, coinciding with a broader cost-cutting agenda under the Trump administration.

 

The United States has ignited controversy by sending a comprehensive questionnaire to United Nations aid agencies, prompting concerns about the future of humanitarian assistance. The questioning, comprising 36 items, seeks information on whether organizations have "anti-American" affiliations, including inquiries into possible ties to communist ideologies. Major global humanitarian bodies such as the UN Refugee Agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross received these queries from the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Under the current administration, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, there is a significant push for fiscal restraint, leading to cutbacks on foreign aid programs. Experts within UN groups fear that this move signals the nation's intention to withdraw from international humanitarian responsibilities and potentially extricate itself from the UN framework entirely.

Past actions raise alarms over this trajectory; the US notably exited the World Health Organization at the onset of President Trump's second term. In a recent announcement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio shared that most programs from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) are now discontinued.

Despite the general belief among Americans that the nation allocates too much to foreign assistance, the US remains a leading contributor, accounting for approximately 40% of global humanitarian funding, despite spending a smaller portion of its GDP compared to many European counterparts.

Some of the questionnaire's probing questions include a request for confirmation that organizations do not collaborate with entities aligned with "communist, socialist, or totalitarian parties" and a stipulation not to accept funding from countries like China, Russia, or Iran. Such inquiries complicate the relationships of UN agencies that are, by nature, funded by multiple governments.

Other questions delve into compliance with various social and environmental initiatives, notably diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices or climate change projects. This scrutiny could present challenges for agencies like UNICEF and the World Food Programme.

Experts, such as Professor Karl Blanchet from Geneva University's Centre for Humanitarian Studies, suggest that the questions seem designed to hinder aid efforts, with a prevailing sentiment that the US has reached a decision to disengage from UN-related humanitarian activities. His assertion equates the situation to a binary choice of multilateralism versus an America-first approach.

The experience of aid workers echoes this frustration. One commented on feeling cornered, emphasizing a sense of entrapment in answering questions that distort the humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality.

UN Human Rights has already opted out of the questionnaire process, citing the limited scope of yes/no questions, some of which did not suit their operational context. A spokesperson indicated that they instead provided clarifications via email where possible.

The questionnaire also appears to reflect wider economic considerations of the Trump administration, with questions indicating possible impacts on US supply chains or access to rare earth minerals in humanitarian project outcomes.

As the situation unfolds, the implications of dwindling US support for global aid remain critical, with dire warnings emerging about potential starvation crises and deteriorating humanitarian conditions in affected regions.