By Wahome Ngatia
In one of the most sweeping rejections of multilateralism in decades, the Trump administration has withdrawn the United States from dozens of global organisations — a move that is reshaping the aid landscape and rattling the NGO world.
The Trump administration has formally withdrawn the United States from 66 international organisations, including 31 entities linked to the United Nations, marking a decisive break with decades of U.S. engagement in global governance. The decision, announced by the White House in early January, cuts U.S. participation and funding across a wide range of bodies involved in climate change, gender equality, development, peacebuilding and humanitarian coordination.
Administration officials say the move is driven by protecting U.S. sovereignty, reduction in spending, and dismantling what they describe as an unaccountable “NGO complex.” In official statements, the White House argued that many multilateral organisations have become “ideological, inefficient and detached from measurable outcomes,” while consuming billions in U.S. taxpayer funds.
At the heart of the administration’s critique is a longstanding grievance against NGOs as middlemen. Senior officials contend that international NGOs and UN agencies absorb large portions of aid budgets through administration, consultancy and compliance costs, leaving too little to reach intended beneficiaries. “The strategy is to cut out intermediaries,” a senior administration official said, “and pursue direct, bilateral arrangements where the U.S. can see results, enforce conditions and maintain control.”
“We are not going to spend billions funding the NGO-plex while our partners have no role to play,” Rubio remarked during the unveiling of the Kenya Health Framework, a prototype for this new era.
Under this approach, Washington intends to shift resources toward bilateral aid, direct government-to-government partnerships, and U.S.-controlled humanitarian mechanisms, while sharply reducing support for multilateral platforms that pool funding and decision-making.
The reaction from the NGO and diplomatic world has been swift and alarmed. UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed “deep regret,” warning that the withdrawals weaken collective responses to global challenges such as climate change, conflict and humanitarian crises. He cautioned that while the U.S. may step back from participation, many obligations under the UN system — including assessed contributions to the UN’s core budget — remain binding.
Critics argue the move will erode U.S. influence, not reduce waste. “Walking away does not dismantle global governance,” said one former senior UN official. “It simply leaves the table to others — China, Russia and regional blocs — while humanitarian gaps widen.”
NGO leaders fear the impact will be felt most acutely in fragile states, where UN agencies and international NGOs coordinate health services, food aid, refugee protection and post-conflict recovery. Programmes supporting women’s health, climate adaptation, and child protection are among those likely to face funding shortfalls.
The Human Cost
For NGO professionals, the implications are existential. The UN is already bracing for an 18.8% workforce reduction, and the World Food Programme faces a potential 90% cut to its U.S.-sourced budget. While the administration argues that direct deals increase accountability, humanitarian leaders fear that unstable regions lacking “stable institutions”—unlike the administration’s favored partners like Kenya—will be left entirely in the dark.
Supporters of the administration counter that the shake-up was overdue. They argue that the global aid system has grown bloated, risk-averse and disconnected from results — and that forcing reform through withdrawal may ultimately lead to leaner, more accountable models of assistance.
For now, the message from Washington is multilateralism is no longer the default, and the NGO sector must adapt to a world where U.S. funding is more selective, more political and far less guaranteed.
