National Interest

by Brett D. Schaefer

    The UN refugee organization has cooperated with the Trump administration to reduce unnecessary costs and emphasize safe returns.

    Historically, the United States has been the largest supporter of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), providing 51 percent of its annual revenue from governments, averaging $1.7 billion from 2013 to 2024. This support was disrupted by the Trump administration’s 2025 suspension of US funding for UN organizations. Across the UN system, the closed spigot forced organizations to reassess. While disruptive, this created an unprecedented opportunity for UN organizations to shed less effective legacy programs in favor of activities better suited to current and future challenges.

    Some UN organizations complained loudly about the loss of funding and resisted calls to change tack. But UNHCR seized the opportunity to reduce costs, restructure the organization and refocus on reducing refugee populations in addition to its commitment to supporting and protecting them. This is exactly how the United States hoped international organizations would respond.

    Most important from a US standpoint was the commitment of the new high commissioner, former Iraqi President Barham Salih, to reduce protracted displacement of refugees through durable solutions while also reducing aid dependency among those who cannot yet return or integrate. The goal, outlined in the “50 by 35” vision, is to reduce protracted displacement by 50 percent by the year 2035.

    As Salih rightly observes, “Being a refugee is not meant to be a permanent fate. It is meant to be a temporary condition.” This emphasis on reducing the numbers of refugees and internally displaced people, which tripled from 40 million in 2006 to 118 million in 2025, is an acknowledgment of donor exhaustion. Nearly 70 percent of refugees are displaced for five years or longer. Extended displacement is a disservice to them and an unreasonable burden on donors and host countries.

    The “50 by 35” effort emphasizes encouraging safe return of refugees to their homes or assisting resettlement through legal pathways in third countries. This is easier if refugees are in secure locations close to home, facilitating safe, lawful and voluntary repatriation. The project seeks to reduce the burden on donors and bolster self-sufficiency by encouraging willing host governments to allow refugees to work and access national service systems.

    UNHCR also opposes abuse of the asylum process because those who game the system undermine opportunities and host country support for genuine refugees. UNHCR notes that, under international law, “States are entitled to expel individuals found not to be in need of international protection and countries of origin have an obligation to receive back their own nationals.”

    But UNHCR cannot do this alone. Resolving conflicts to allow safe returns should be a UN priority. Countries and parties to protracted conflicts should be held more accountable by the UN Security Council and individual aid donors for stalling peace processes.

    Internally, UNHCR has focused on reducing costs and streamlining operations in response to funding shortfalls. Overall, UNHCR funding fell by $1.2 billion in 2025—a 24 percent drop versus 2024. The United States was primarily responsible for this decline. Although the United States remained the largest individual donor to UNHCR, its donations fell to $812 million in 2025, half of the average for the previous decade. This financial pressure necessitated reforms.

    In response, UNHCR has reduced its travel expenditure by 50 percent by suspending business class travel, prohibiting international travel for workshops and other measures. Overall, UNHCR realized $135 million in cost savings in 2025 by consolidating processes, conducting secondary bidding and selling unnecessary assets, including nearly 2,000 vehicles. Additional proposals to reduce duplication, centralize shared services, modernize technology and integrate AI may save another $50 million. Ongoing reviews are projected to result in up to $28 million in additional cost reductions.

    The organization also reduced total staff and affiliated employees by a third, over 6,000 positions and cut half of senior management positions in Geneva and regional offices. Similarly, UNHCR is in the process of revising its practice of paying staff in between assignments. With the reduction in footprint, nearly 1,000 UNHCR staff were being paid while not working, with a projected cost of $185 million over the 2026–2028 period. In response, the high commissioner activated the “Staff Placement and Reduction in Force Policy” that will terminate those individuals who do not obtain a position in an existing vacant post by the end of the summer.

    Finally, UNHCR is among the few UN organizations that cooperate with US inquiries into malfeasance or misconduct involving US-funded activities and have agreed to allow US Offices of Inspectors General to access data, documents and other materials necessary to verify allegations. This level of cooperation stands in sharp contrast to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which does not grant such access, cooperation, or transparency in its memorandum of understanding with the United States signed in December 2025. Congress has repeatedly adopted legislation calling for such access.

    The Trump administration sees value in many parts of the United Nations system, but it wants UN organizations to focus on core purposes, increase efficiency and enhance transparency and accountability. It has made clear that US support and participation will be based on the extent to which international organizations support US interests and that US financial contributions will be linked to implementation of such reforms.

    UNHCR responded to US reform leverage in ways much of the UN system has not. Unfortunately, that positive response has been overshadowed by the high commissioner’s decision not to appoint the preferred US candidate as his deputy—a decision that has been poorly received by the Department of State. This reaction is overwrought and the dispute over the appointment should be outweighed by the reforms embraced by UNHCR, a valuable partner of the United States.