Share & more
This is Inklings, where we explore how aid works in the wilds of humanitarian hubs, on the front lines of emergency response, or in the dark corners of aid punditry.
It’s also available as an email newsletter. Subscribe here.
Today: Why the global gag rule makes all US funding an ethical dilemma, why some are urging donors to stop giving money to pooled funds (for now), and what’s a humanitarian “tiger team”?
On the radar |
If humanitarians parsing the fine print of December’s $2 billion US-OCHA funding deal were waiting for the other shoe to drop, then the extreme expansion of the so-called global gag rule is a chunky combat boot. Any analysis of the deal – its potential benefits, its risky tradeoffs – must be read in tandem with the gag’s sweeping conditions. And that might make the $2 billion in promised cash the biggest pivot point for the international humanitarian system’s funding crisis since, well, the US aid cuts.
- Quick recap: In the past, the US global gag has tried to block NGOs that receive US health funding from providing or promoting abortion care – even if the money comes from other sources. The Trump administration has pushed its ideology further: it now covers humanitarian funding and almost all foreign aid, and it also targets gender identity and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- One angle: Some believe it’s nothing short of an attempt to steer how global aid works, and to commandeer aid institutions. Do you want US funding? You’ll have to change how you work (and what you work on), and maybe even reject funding from other sources. Some aid groups will take the money, and face criticism for doing so. Some groups will refuse to, and their pocketbooks will continue to suffer in the short term. Meanwhile, the various pushes to make the global emergency aid system more financially sustainable and not subject to the whims of a single, chaotic donor are nascent, disjointed, or confined to closed circles. A year after the US cuts plunged the sector into introspection mode, it still feels stuck in the same spot.
- “Poisoned chalice”: The previously announced $2 billion will be steered to pooled funds run by the UN’s humanitarian coordination arm, OCHA. Pooled funds are like joint bank accounts, where multiple donors’ money is deposited then (relatively) quickly distributed to various aid groups responding to emergencies. But the global gag rules could mean that US money in a pooled fund could force all who draw cash from it to comply, according to an analysis by the International Pride Centre, which focuses on the risks faced by LGBTQI+ people in emergencies. ”The presence of any US money creates a poisoned chalice,” the organisation said in a briefing. There’s talk of partitioning the US cash into a separate account within the pooled funds, which may address this issue.
- Chaos is part of the plan: The effectiveness of the global gag is also in its ambiguity. What’s off limits? What counts as promoting “banned” issues? Can humanitarians simply stop using words like “diversity”, but design responses that reach more vulnerable “diverse” communities? Can they build administrative firewalls around US funding – in pooled funds, and within their own organisations – and sidestep the gag rule’s reach? Those expecting high-level specifics from the US administration might look to last year’s aid cuts for the blueprint: over-compliance anticipated directives that were never spelled out.
- Dilemmas: Accepting the US conditions would be a violation of humanitarian principles, the International Pride Centre warns. For example, new gag restrictions on gender and DEI could stop the needs of trans people from being recognised (including for refugee protection), or for people from ethnic and religious minorities being targeted in programmes. It’s calling on humanitarians to “publicly reject ideologically infused US funding”, though it acknowledges the difficulty in the decision.
- Pooled funds: It’s also urging other donors to stop giving money to the OCHA pooled funds “until the funds’ independence is guaranteed”. UN relief chief Tom Fletcher, who struck the US deal largely without input from other aid leaders, has called on other donors to give more of their money to OCHA pooled funds.
- Worries: Some aid officials, meanwhile, worry of the criticism if (and when) their organisations decide to accept US cash.
- Will there be waivers? The new gag rule leaves room for waivers. We asked the State Department if and how this would be applied to humanitarian funding. “Requirements will be phased in over the course of Fiscal Year 2026,” it said in a statement, “and the Secretary [of State, Marco Rubio] will retain a narrowly tailored waiver authority, in order to ensure that implementation of these new requirements does not unduly disrupt ongoing lifesaving programming, disaster response, and other critical priorities.”
- Worries, too: Some worry that even talking about the existence of waivers might spark a backlash among US right-wing influencers.
- Waivers, redux: Here’s a reminder of how waivers worked during the aid cuts last year: They didn’t.
- How are UN agencies interpreting it? Humanitarian groups (or their legal experts) are still figuring out the global gag’s implications and what they’ll do. An OCHA spokesperson said last week they were looking into “what it means”. A spokesperson for the UN’s refugee agency, UNHCR, said the rules were being analysed. A WHO spokesperson didn’t reply to questions on the global gag rule (but sent some fun links. More below). The World Food Programme, UNICEF, and the International Organization for Migration did not respond to requests for comment, which is a thing.
- The US-OCHA partnership marches on: This week, the US (and not OCHA, notably) hosted an announcement of $200 million for the OCHA-run Sudan Humanitarian Fund (part of the overall $2 billion previously announced). The United Arab Emirates promised $500 million. The State Department, meanwhile, has ordered all US missions to review aid programmes to make sure they comply with the global gag rule, Reuters reported.
- Tiger teams: In addition to funding deals, Fletcher and the US may share a penchant for feline-themed task forces. The State Department-ordered aid review suggested creating “tiger teams” to work on the rules, Reuters noted. After the US funding deal was announced, Fletcher told other aid leaders he was creating a cross-agency tiger team to speed up coordination on getting the funding process off the ground. Ousted US national security advisor Mike Waltz also discussed tiger teams in those self-leaked Signal chat messages.
Data points |
85%: WHO doesn’t have the US in its corner. But its finances are in “a position of stability”, Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said last week, ahead of executive board meetings now under way. The health agency has raised 85% of its base funding needs for the next two budget years, Tedros said. He credited a move to increase the mandatory contributions that countries owe, and a new push to raise money through so-called investment rounds.
End quote |
“We don't yet know how humanitarians are going to deal with this because they've never had to deal with it before.”
What should humanitarians expect from the global gag rule, and how might they handle it? We asked people with hard-won expertise. Read our Q&A with MSI Reproductive Choices here.
Have any tips, recommendations, or indecipherable acronyms to share with the Inklings newsletter? Get in touch: [email protected]
