The Trump administration is weighing whether to sever ties with the United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR), triggering an intense behind-the-scenes diplomatic effort to preserve one of the world’s most important humanitarian partnerships. Although no final decision has been announced, officials and diplomats say the possibility alone has exposed growing tensions between Washington and multilateral institutions as President Donald Trump reshapes U.S. foreign policy around an “America First” agenda.
If the United States ultimately withdraws its support, the consequences would extend well beyond the U.N. system, potentially weakening global refugee protection at a time when displacement has reached historic levels due to wars in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza and elsewhere.
Washington Weighs a Major Break
According to multiple diplomatic, congressional and humanitarian sources familiar with the discussions, the administration has been considering reducing or ending its relationship with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
While officials had reportedly expected an announcement last week, no decision materialized, suggesting an intensive lobbying campaign by diplomats, aid organizations and U.N. officials may have delayed or possibly prevented the move.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The United States has historically been UNHCR’s largest financial supporter, contributing approximately $868 million in 2025, nearly one-quarter of the agency’s total funding. Any withdrawal would represent one of the most consequential breaks between Washington and the post-World War II humanitarian system.
A State Department spokesperson said there has been no formal change in U.S. engagement with the refugee agency, but emphasized that the administration continues reviewing America’s participation in international organizations under an executive order signed earlier this year.
A Leadership Dispute Behind the Scenes
Much of the tension reportedly stems from a dispute over UNHCR’s recent leadership appointments.
Last month, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres and High Commissioner for Refugees Barham Salih appointed American diplomat Tressa Rae Finerty as the agency’s deputy high commissioner.
The appointment disappointed officials within the Trump administration, who had strongly backed Simon Hankinson, a former U.S. foreign service officer known for advocating stricter immigration policies and criticizing what he describes as UNHCR’s “mass migration agenda.”
According to several sources, Washington viewed the appointment as a missed opportunity to push institutional reforms inside the refugee agency.
Hankinson himself argued that his selection would have redirected the organization toward what he considers its original mission of assisting genuine refugees while tightening oversight of spending and operations.
For UNHCR leadership, however, appointing Hankinson reportedly risked internal opposition given his outspoken criticism of the agency’s current approach.
Part of Trump’s Wider U.N. Strategy
The dispute reflects a broader pattern rather than an isolated disagreement.
Since returning to office, President Trump has steadily reduced U.S. involvement across the United Nations system. His administration has withdrawn from several U.N. bodies, reduced funding for multiple international organizations, and sought to narrow America’s commitments to multilateral institutions that it believes no longer serve U.S. interests.
Immigration has become a central pillar of that strategy.
The administration has simultaneously tightened asylum policies at home while encouraging allies abroad to adopt stricter migration controls, arguing that current international refugee frameworks create incentives for uncontrolled migration.
Within that context, UNHCR has increasingly become part of a larger ideological debate over sovereignty, border security and international burden-sharing.
Why UNHCR Matters
Created in 1950 following the devastation of World War II, UNHCR coordinates international assistance for refugees fleeing war, persecution and violence.
Today, the agency assists millions of displaced people across dozens of active conflict zones, providing emergency shelter, food assistance, legal protection and support for resettlement.
Even before the latest political uncertainty, UNHCR was already confronting one of the worst financial crises in its history.
Funding reportedly fell by roughly 30% compared with last year, forcing the agency to eliminate thousands of positions and scale back humanitarian operations across multiple regions.
Losing its largest donor would likely accelerate those reductions dramatically.
Aid officials warn that refugee camps, emergency medical assistance, education programs and food distributions could all face further cuts if U.S. funding disappears.
Global Humanitarian Risks
The timing could hardly be more difficult.
The world is currently experiencing record or near-record levels of forced displacement. Conflicts in Ukraine and Sudan continue to produce millions of refugees, while instability across the Middle East and Africa has further stretched humanitarian resources.
Diplomats fear that weakening UNHCR would also undermine the 1951 Refugee Convention, widely regarded as the foundation of the modern international refugee protection system.
Several officials described the potential withdrawal as an “existential threat” that could encourage other governments to reduce both political and financial support for refugee protection.
Beyond immediate humanitarian consequences, such a move could fundamentally reshape global migration governance by reducing the capacity of the world’s principal refugee agency.
What’s Next?
For now, no final decision has been announced, leaving diplomats cautiously hopeful that ongoing engagement with Washington may preserve at least part of the relationship.
Much will likely depend on whether the administration views UNHCR as reformable or concludes that its objectives are fundamentally incompatible with Trump’s immigration agenda.
Even if Washington stops short of a complete withdrawal, reduced funding or diminished political engagement would still significantly affect UNHCR’s operations at a time when humanitarian needs continue to expand.
The debate also reflects a broader question about the future of American leadership in global institutions. As the United States increasingly prioritizes bilateral diplomacy and national sovereignty over multilateral cooperation, organizations created after World War II face mounting pressure to justify both their relevance and their relationship with Washington.
Whatever decision emerges in the coming weeks will shape not only U.S.-U.N. relations, but also the international community’s ability to respond to one of the defining humanitarian challenges of the twenty-first century.
With information from Reuters.
