U.N. to Cut 20% of Humanitarian Staff Globally

U.N. to Cut 20% of Humanitarian Staff Globally \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The U.N.’s humanitarian arm, OCHA, is cutting 20% of its global staff due to a $58 million budget shortfall. Chief Tom Fletcher cited sharp declines in donor contributions, especially from the U.S. Operations in at least nine countries will be scaled back amid the global funding crisis.

Quick Looks

• U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to cut 20% of its 2,600 staff.
• The agency faces a $58 million funding gap in its projected 2025 budget.
• U.S. identified as primary donor, historically contributing 20% of OCHA’s budget.
• OCHA to scale down operations in nine countries, including Iraq, Libya, and Colombia.
• The U.S. State Department says funding remains “under review”; White House declined comment.
• Cuts follow broader pullback of U.S. humanitarian aid under President Donald Trump.
• Local and grassroots organizations are most affected by the financial shortfall.
• OCHA to streamline leadership and shift decision-making to the field level.
• Staffing changes aim to prioritize rapid response and localized coordination.
• OCHA plans to restore a 70/30 budget ratio, favoring field over HQ spending.

Deep Look

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)—the nerve center of the U.N.’s global crisis response—is undergoing one of its most dramatic structural overhauls in decades. Facing a staggering $58 million funding gap, OCHA will lay off 20% of its 2,600-member staff across more than 60 countries, marking a pivotal moment for international humanitarian coordination.

The cuts, announced in a letter to staff by U.N. humanitarian chief Tom Fletcher, underscore a growing disconnect between escalating global needs and dwindling international support. The agency, long considered essential in mobilizing emergency responses to natural disasters, conflicts, and famines, now finds itself scaling down operations at a time of unprecedented humanitarian demand.

A Global System at Risk

Before this crisis, the humanitarian ecosystem was already showing signs of strain. Wars in Sudan, Ukraine, Gaza, and Syria, record-breaking natural disasters, and persistent global food insecurity had left U.N. agencies stretched thin and operating on shoestring budgets. The expectation, however, was that traditional donors—particularly the United States—would continue to anchor the financial foundation of this work.

That expectation may no longer hold.

Fletcher’s letter stops short of explicitly naming the United States as the reason for the current shortfall, but it leaves little doubt. Historically, the U.S. has provided approximately 20% of OCHA’s extra-budgetary resources—around $63 million per year. That level of support is now uncertain.

“The U.S. alone has been the largest humanitarian donor for decades,” Fletcher wrote. But with funding now “under review,” and no firm commitment for 2025, OCHA is being forced to restructure preemptively, lest it spiral into a deeper financial crisis.

The U.S. State Department confirmed that the funding situation remains unresolved, and the White House declined to comment—a silence that speaks volumes amid escalating criticism of President Donald Trump’s broader retreat from global aid responsibilities.

The Trump Administration’s Aid Realignment

Under Trump, the U.S. has dismantled or defunded many international aid institutions, most notably the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), long a cornerstone of American soft power. Key global health programs, food assistance pipelines, and peacekeeping initiatives have all been curtailed or restructured to reflect the administration’s “America First” approach.

In the case of the U.N., Trump has repeatedly expressed disdain for the body’s bureaucracy and globalist leanings, pulling funding from multiple agencies including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).

Fletcher’s letter captures the consequences of this withdrawal in stark terms: underfunded programs, strained international partnerships, and a humanitarian coordination system “literally under attack.”

Operational Retrenchment: Who’s Affected

As part of the restructure, OCHA will scale down or shutter operations in at least nine countries and regional hubs, including:

• Cameroon – where a humanitarian emergency persists amid ongoing conflict in Anglophone regions.
• Colombia – where support is still needed for Venezuelan refugees and displaced indigenous communities.
• Iraq and Libya – both grappling with fragile post-conflict recoveries.
• Nigeria and Pakistan – where climate-related disasters and conflict require ongoing coordination.
• Zimbabwe and Eritrea – vulnerable to food insecurity and economic shocks.
• Gaziantep, Turkey – a critical hub for cross-border humanitarian access into war-torn Syria.

This recalibration will significantly impact not only OCHA’s presence but also the thousands of local and international organizations that depend on its coordination, funding facilitation, and field-level intelligence to deliver aid efficiently.

Decentralization as Survival Strategy

In a bid to stay operationally relevant and cost-effective, Fletcher announced that OCHA will move toward a decentralized model, shifting more decision-making authority and resources to country and regional offices. Headquarters functions in New York and Geneva will be trimmed, and OCHA will return to a 70/30 spending ratio, favoring frontline deployment over central administration.

This model seeks to do more with less—prioritizing local empowerment, faster response times, and context-specific coordination—but it may also test the limits of an already overstretched system.

“If we don’t adapt, we will fail the people we’re meant to serve,” Fletcher’s letter read.

The Human Impact: Local Groups at Risk

Perhaps the most painful consequence of this funding collapse is its impact on frontline responders—especially local NGOs and civil society groups. Often the first to reach affected populations, these organizations rely on U.N. coordination to access funding, logistics, and international visibility.

According to Fletcher, local partners are bearing the brunt of the financial crisis. Without them, the U.N.’s ability to reach remote and vulnerable communities is severely diminished.

Also at risk are U.N. joint response plans, which OCHA manages for crises across dozens of countries. These include contingency plans for cholera outbreaks, refugee displacement, famine prevention, and post-disaster recovery.

A Precarious Future for Humanitarian Coordination

The funding crisis facing OCHA is symptomatic of a broader shift in global priorities, where humanitarian funding is being outpaced by need—and undermined by political retrenchment.

This realignment, paired with rising isolationism in key donor countries, is weakening the collaborative infrastructure that underpins emergency relief operations. Without renewed political will and financial commitment from the global community—especially from the U.S.—the future of multilateral humanitarian response is in jeopardy.

As the U.N. struggles to respond to simultaneous emergencies in Gaza, Haiti, Sudan, and Ukraine, the downsizing of its central coordination office could have ripple effects across every major humanitarian crisis in 2024 and beyond.

Fletcher, for his part, ended his letter with a note of guarded optimism: that a leaner, more focused OCHA might still rise to the occasion.

Whether that will be enough remains to be seen.

More on US News

U.N. to Cut 20% U.N. to Cut 20%