Over the past weeks, the focus has been on the Trump administration’s significant changes to USAID spending, revealing not just gaps in oversight but also financial uncertainties and programs whose impact remains unclear. Every new claim of savings is met with arguments that the cuts are not as beneficial as they seem.

While the debate on USAID continues in Washington, a more significant clash is on the horizon. This conflict will challenge America’s global leadership, its dedication to financial responsibility, and the future of humanitarian aid. The central question at the heart of this looming storm is: What should be done about the United Nations?

This debate will not be quiet; it will be global, politically charged, and high-stakes. Supporters of the UN and international allies will push to maintain funding, while others will demand more transparency and fiscal responsibility. The outcome will not only affect U.S. foreign aid but also America’s influence in the international arena.

A specific U.N. program under scrutiny will be the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan. This initiative, with a vast budget, aims to assist displaced people in several Latin American and Caribbean countries. The funding for this program has risen significantly over the years, tied to U.S. immigration policies and increasing migration incentives.

The UN is under scrutiny for its handling of global crises, with criticisms of stifling debate on climate change and its failure to effectively mediate in conflict zones. The humanitarian arm of the U.N. has faced challenges in meeting basic needs, as seen in Sudan, where famine and mass displacement persist. Moreover, accusations of bias in Middle Eastern conflicts have diminished trust in the U.N.’s impartiality.

The growing skepticism about the U.N.’s effectiveness highlights the role of programs like the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan. While providing assistance across various sectors, questions arise about the impact and outcomes of these initiatives. The focus on outputs over outcomes is a common issue with U.N.-led programs, raising concerns about long-term effectiveness.

This debate presents an opportunity for policymakers to push for accountability and reform to ensure that U.S. funding drives meaningful change. Essential questions must be addressed about the program’s impact on displaced populations and its alignment with broader objectives.

This situation emphasizes the need for greater transparency and accountability in international aid programs to prevent inefficiency and misguided policies. Calls for reform have been met with resistance from the U.N., highlighting the challenges of changing bureaucratic processes.

Lawmakers are urged to conduct thorough audits to assess the impact of foreign aid programs like the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan. Insisting on accountability in international spending is crucial to prevent misuse of funds.