The United States has resumed funding for a range of global health and humanitarian programmes through international organisations, marking a significant shift in its foreign assistance policy roughly 18 months after completely freezing its international aid operations.

Over the past two months, Washington has pledged nearly $2 billion to multilateral agencies working on hunger, infectious diseases, disaster relief and child health, despite President Donald Trump’s continued emphasis on ending recipient dependency on US grants.

The renewed funding comes about 13 months after the Trump administration formally dissolved the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), ending the operations of what had long been the world’s largest bilateral development agency. Instead of rebuilding its overseas presence, the administration is now relying on established international bodies to deliver targeted assistance.

On 20 January 2025, the first day of his second term, Trump signed an executive order directing a 90-day pause on all USAID activities pending a review. The move triggered the temporary closure of USAID offices worldwide, resulting in more than 10,000 job losses.

On 1 July 2025, the administration permanently dissolved USAID as an independent agency, subsuming its remaining functions under the US Department of State.

Last week, the State Department informed Congress that it would provide $600 million to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which supports immunisation programmes in low-income countries. The allocation is part of a broader package of humanitarian commitments announced in recent weeks.

The administration has pledged $800 million to the World Food Programme (WFP) to address severe malnutrition in countries including Ethiopia, Myanmar and Ukraine. UNICEF is set to receive $218 million for child health, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene projects.

Washington has also committed $100 million to Operation End Starvation, a public-private initiative aimed at reducing child mortality and severe malnutrition, and $50 million to a coalition developing Ebola vaccines and strengthening pandemic preparedness.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) will receive $203 million for disaster response and emergency assistance.

In addition, the administration has allocated $220 million for Ebola response efforts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a further $350 million for broader Ebola-affected regions. Another $661 million has been pledged to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Upon taking office, President Trump claimed that billions of dollars in overseas assistance routinely failed to reach genuine victims, alleging widespread fraud, inefficiency and political bias within USAID. Maintaining that American taxpayers were funding programmes that lacked accountability and produced limited strategic benefits for the United States, his administration ordered the complete dismantling of USAID’s global network.

Sources familiar with State Department discussions told The New York Times that two primary factors drove the policy shift: growing concern over global health security, including Ebola outbreaks, and the practical reality that, following the closure of USAID’s overseas offices, Washington no longer had the operational capacity to deliver aid directly and needed to rely on international bodies instead.

Mark Green, who served as USAID administrator during Trump’s first term, said the administration appeared to have acknowledged the link between overseas health crises and US national security.

“The administration appears to have recognised that global health security is integral to US national security,” Green said.

Jeremy Lewin, the State Department’s senior foreign assistance official, said his team is focused on deploying aid leanly and effectively, with the explicit goal of ending recipient dependency on US grants.

“We will strategically leverage relationships with these international bodies when required, but that does not imply an annual financial commitment,” Lewin said.

Lewin, a key figure in closing USAID and terminating thousands of staff, warned last December that the United Nations risks becoming obsolete if it fails to adapt. While UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher publicly supported US efforts to eliminate duplication and improve efficiency, the renewed aid comes tied to strict political caveats.

In December, Washington imposed conditions prohibiting UN agencies from directing US-funded aid to Afghanistan and Yemen, with Lewin asserting that Washington possessed evidence showing aid intended for Afghan civilians had been diverted by the Taliban.

The administration has also reduced food assistance in civil war-torn Sudan and strictly prohibited the use of US humanitarian funds for climate change-related programmes.

Though such politically charged conditions challenge core tenets of humanitarian aid—which dictate that relief must remain neutral, impartial, and strictly needs-based—relief groups note that Washington’s $2 billion pledge provides vital relief at a time when global conflict, famine, and disease are compounding.

Whether the United States maintains that level of engagement long-term remains uncertain, as President Trump declared in 2025 a broader US withdrawal from international organisations alongside foreign aid cuts.

For now, the administration’s latest pledges signal not a return to the USAID model, but a new approach in which Washington seeks to influence global humanitarian efforts by financing multilateral organisations while retaining tighter political and financial control over how US assistance is spent.