USG withdrawal from 66 Int'l Organisations. Note for fundraisers.

On January 7, 2026, the United States issued a Presidential Memorandum directing withdrawal from 66 international organizations. The list included many UN entities, climate and development bodies, and global forums, with immediate cessation of participation and funding as permitted by U.S. law. This marks a deeper retreat from multilateral engagement, following earlier exits from the WHO, Human Rights Council, and climate treaties. While this may look like just a budgetary shift, it is not. It signals a structural reorientation of global cooperation.

Some of the immediate implications for humanitarian and development organizations include reduced contributions to multilateral platforms and pooled funds, increased pressure on UN agencies and INGOs reliant on coordinated global financing, and strategic shifts by donor states in a bid to fill funding voids;

1. Funding Gaps in Multilateral Systems

• The U.S. has historically been a major contributor to global humanitarian and development financing; cuts or withdrawals from bodies like UNICEF, UN Water, UNFPA, UN Peacebuilding Fund, and others will ripple through pooled funding mechanisms and partner programmes.

2. Operational Disruptions

• Programme delivery via UN agencies and global funds (e.g., vaccine programmes, nutrition, protection in conflict zones) may slow if alternative funding and implementation structures aren’t secured.

• Humanitarian response teams reliant on coordinated multilateral frameworks may face fragmentation in planning and logistics.

3. Strategic Shifts by Donor States

• Other donors may be pressured to fill funding voids, but internal budget constraints and geopolitical priorities limit how swiftly and fully this can happen.

• Some countries may deepen bilateral aid, reducing the predictability of pooled, multilateral financing.

4. Rise in Bilateral and Private Funding OpportunitiesThe vacuum created by reduced U.S. engagement opens potential for:

• Bilateral partnerships with other governments (e.g., EU, Japan, Canada) wishing to sustain multilateralism and global aid norms.

• Private sector and philanthropic funding to underwrite programmes previously supported through UN or global entity channels.

• Thematic reorientation; funds channelled directly to implementation partners with strong accountability and outcome evidence will be increasingly attractive.

What does this mean for fundraisers?

The era of relying heavily on a narrow set of traditional donors is over. Fundraising must now be more strategic, diversified, and evidence-driven than ever before.

Key areas fundraisers should focus on:

1. Diversification of income: Move beyond the USG and look towards EU institutions, non-US bilateral, development banks, foundations, and private philanthropy

2.  Stronger value propositions: outcomes, cost-effectiveness, scalability, and risk management matter more than ever

3. Bilateral and private partnerships: donors increasingly want direct relationships and clearer attribution

4. Innovative financing: blended finance, pooled mechanisms, guarantees, and impact-linked funding

This moment calls for a shift from proposal production to strategic financing leadership.

Organizations that adapt quickly by aligning programming with donor priorities while staying true to humanitarian principles  will be better positioned to weather what comes next.