Geneva:
The United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) has eliminated nearly 5,000 jobs this year following sweeping cuts in international aid, its chief announced Monday, fiercely condemning the “disastrous” political decisions behind the funding crisis.
UNHCR head Filippo Grandi confirmed the cuts amount to more than a quarter of the agency’s workforce. The agency is grappling with surging global displacement at a time when the United States—traditionally the world’s top donor—has heavily slashed foreign aid under President Donald Trump, causing havoc across humanitarian operations globally.
Grandi stated that the impact has been immediate and severe: “Critical programmes and lifesaving activities have to be stopped, gender-based violence prevention work, psychosocial support to survivors of torture, stopped.”
“Schools were closed, food assistance decreased, cash grants cut, resettlement ground to a halt. This is what happens when you slash funding by over $1 billion in a matter of weeks,” Grandi lamented.
The Funding Gap and US Scrutiny
The UN refugee chief described the situation as a result of “political choices with disastrous financial implications.” Washington previously accounted for more than 40 percent of UNHCR’s budget. The withdrawal of US funding, coupled with belt-tightening by other major donor countries, has left the agency facing “bleak” numbers.
UNHCR had an approved 2025 budget of $10.6 billion but projects it will end the year with only $3.9 billion in available funds—a significant billion decrease compared to 2024.
Meanwhile, the US Representative to the UN, Tressa Rae Finerty, addressed the agency’s executive committee, defending Washington’s cutbacks by arguing the US has been paying a “disproportionate” share of UNHCR’s costs.
Finerty coupled her call for reform with a strong critique of asylum systems, blaming economic migration for the strain on humanitarian resources. She warned: “Abuse of the asylum system by economic migrants seeking to undermine immigration law has reached epidemic proportions and now threatens support for the asylum principle itself.” The sharp divergence in views underscores the profound political and financial challenges facing global humanitarian aid.
