A fight for transparency and accountability is coming to the UN

For weeks, headlines have been dominated by the Trump administration’s DOGE-led overhaul of USAID spending, exposing not just gaps in oversight but also financial blind spots and programs whose humanitarian impact and strategic value to the U.S. remain uncertain. Each new claim of billions saved is swiftly met with counterarguments that the cuts are an illusion. 

Yet, while Washington debates USAID, a far bigger clash is coming — one that will test America’s role in global leadership, its commitment to fiscal responsibility, and the future of humanitarian aid itself. 

At the heart of this brewing storm is a single question: What is to be done about the United Nations?

This will not be a quiet policy debate. It will be global, partisan, and high-stakes, with U.N. advocates and international allies pushing to preserve billions in funding, while others demand greater transparency and fiscal accountability. The outcome will reshape not just U.S. foreign aid, but America’s influence on the world stage. 

One U.N. program certain to come under intense scrutiny is the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan — a sprawling $1.4 billion initiative involving 15 U.N. affiliates and 230 NGOs, aimed at assisting displaced populations across 17 Latin American and Caribbean countries. For more than a decade, its funding has surged in direct response to U.S. immigration policies, rising as migration incentives expanded. 

This debate will unfold against the backdrop of the largest diaspora in the history of the Western Hemisphere — more than 7.7 million Venezuelans fleeing continued economic collapse and political repression. This crisis has been compounded by U.S. immigration policies that incentivized migration flows across the region and beyond toward the southern border. 

The United Nations is facing growing criticism over its ability to address the world’s most pressing crises. Its climate change policies are said to stifle debate and push a rigid agenda that sidelines alternative approaches.  

In conflict zones like Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan and Ukraine, the U.N.’s failure to mediate effectively or take decisive action has reinforced calls for structural reform, exposing the limitations of an institution shackled by bureaucratic inertia and security council deadlock.  

The humanitarian arm of the U.N., tasked with alleviating suffering, has struggled to meet even the most basic needs, as seen in Sudan, where famine, disease and mass displacement continue unabated. Meanwhile, its portrayal of Middle Eastern conflicts and claims of overt support for Hamas in Gaza, have fueled accusations of bias, undermining trust in its ability to serve as an impartial global arbiter. 

As skepticism toward the U.N.’s humanitarian effectiveness grows, programs like the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan provide support for migrants, refugees and host communities across multiple sectors, including food security, temporary shelter, rent assistance and essential health services. 

To foster long-term stability, it also offers education, vocational training and job market access, alongside nearly $200 million in cash and voucher assistance for 2025-2026.  

The UN’s own 2025 figures show that over 80 percent of the plan’s budget is controlled by U.N. agencies, leaving national NGOs and local partners with only a fraction. This top-heavy structure, spanning 17 countries and 23,600 activities, creates a complex funding maze that undermines transparency, accountability and trust. 

One of the plan’s biggest failures — common in U.N.-led programs — is prioritizing outputs over outcomes. The U.N. tracks services provided, like food packages and shelter spaces, but rarely measures long-term impact. 

Counting migrants in temporary housing is an output; tracking how many achieve stable employment is an outcome. Yet by prioritizing superficial metrics, the U.N. sidesteps a harder question: Are these programs solving problems or merely sustaining dependency? Without measurable long-term results, donors are left funding initiatives that appear effective on paper but fail to deliver meaningful impact. 

This growing debate presents an opportunity for policymakers to demand accountability and reform, ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars drive real, lasting change. Critical questions must be asked: 

• Did Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan funds help stabilize displaced populations closer to home, or did they instead participate in a migration pipeline through Central America and into the U.S.? 
• How much of this funding directly supported migration versus providing life-saving humanitarian relief in host countries? 
• Did the plan distinguish between genuine asylum seekers and economic migrants, or did it frame migration in a way that aligned with its broader objectives? 
• Were migrants informed that economic claims wouldn’t qualify for U.S. asylum, or was a different narrative encouraged? 

At stake is whether the Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan remains a neutral humanitarian initiative or has drifted into advocacy — potentially turning U.S. taxpayers into unwitting sponsors of a system vulnerable to abuse. 

To be sure, the plan has stepped up where others have not. Addressing a crisis of this scale — millions of displaced people across 17 countries — is no small task. But recognition alone is not enough. Without greater transparency and accountability, much of this funding risks being lost to inefficiency, misguided policies, and bureaucratic inertia. 

The United Nations has long resisted substantive reforms. It is, at its core, an institutional bureaucracy — a system designed for self-preservation. Its main characteristic is not adaptability but survivability. Calls for change will be met with obstruction, not urgency, as U.N. agencies work to protect their outdated processes and inflated administrative costs. 

For too long, Congress has rubber-stamped billions in U.N. aid with little scrutiny. The Regional Refugee and Migrant Response Plan may be just one program but it exemplifies a broader issue: international bureaucracies thrive while the people they claim to help remain in crisis. Before another dollar is spent, lawmakers must demand a full, accountability audit — not just of budgets, but of impact. 

If the U.S. insists on accountability in domestic spending, it should demand the same for every dollar spent abroad. Anything less is a blank check for failure. 

Ron MacCammon, Ed.D., is a retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel and former political officer at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, where he oversaw the State Department’s largest humanitarian demining program. He has written extensively on security, governance, and international affairs.