The U.S. is pressing other nations to back a “trade over aid” initiative at the United Nations, a move tied to the Trump administration’s broader shift away from donor-focused development assistance and toward greater private investment. The United Nations is warning against privatizing a global aid system that delivers crucial assistance to some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.
Who Gets to Decide
Ahead of the initiative being formally introduced at the U.N. at the end of April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered all U.S. diplomats to deliver a call to action to high-level foreign officials to sign on with their support by Monday, according to a diplomatic cable sent this week and obtained by The Associated Press. The directive says the “Trade Over Aid Initiative” is meant to encourage U.N. member states to “make pro-business reforms” to their aid processes by facilitating conversations between governments, the private sector and international organizations.
The proposal also calls for “free market” policies to attract foreign trade that include “limited regulation, low taxation, multiple energy sources, private property rights, sanctity of contracts, and a trusted judiciary.” The language lays out a familiar hierarchy: governments and institutions setting the terms, private capital invited in, and the people who rely on aid left to live with the consequences.
Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, said, “The idea that trade and free market capitalism is the surest path to prosperity has been proven by the facts and by history.” He added, “The U.S. remains the most generous country in the history of the world, but those arguing for ‘aid not trade’ are really arguing for lining the pockets of a corrupt NGO industrial complex.”
What the Powerful Call Reform
While signing on to the proposal is nonbinding and does not create obligations or require changes to national laws, it would reflect global opinion on the increasingly dire global aid situation as powerful countries like the U.S., the United Kingdom and others have decreased funding for humanitarian aid and increased their nations’ defense spending. The latest move is also seen by the U.N. and other international organizations as further abandoning the aid system at a moment of growing conflicts around the world, while increasing the risk of exploitation by for-profit companies.
The U.N. is not endorsing the U.S. push. Instead, it is committed to putting in place its sustainable development agenda by 2030, U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, which includes ending poverty, achieving gender equality and urgently tackling climate change. “For us, trade, investment, and private sector engagement can be powerful drivers of inclusive growth and job creation,” he told AP. “They should, however, not be used to substitute international development cooperation or for principled humanitarian assistance.”
That is the neat little split on display: one side wants aid processes remade around market logic and private investment; the other warns that humanitarian assistance should not be turned into another profit stream. The people at the bottom are still the ones expected to absorb the risk.
Who Pays for the Shift
Eric Pelofsky, who served at the State Department under the Barack Obama and George W. Bush administrations, blasted the effort in a statement, saying that “there’s no American who looks at a picture of a starving child and sees an opportunity for companies to enrich themselves.” “That’s because Americans have historically run to the fire to help rather than looking for ways to sell fire hoses to those suffering,” according to a statement from Pelofsky, now an executive at the Rockefeller Foundation. “This approach betrays America’s traditions, values, and national security interests — and it makes us less safe.”
The initiative builds on the Trump administration’s pattern over the last year of pulling back from organizations that promote global cooperation. Since taking office in January 2025, the administration has suspended support for agencies like the World Health Organization, the U.N. Human Rights Council and the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO. The Trump administration also dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, while taking a larger, à la carte approach to paying dues to the United Nations, picking which operations and agencies it believes align with Trump’s agenda and avoiding those that no longer serve U.S. interests.
In December, U.S. officials announced a $2 billion pledge for U.N. humanitarian aid, a small fraction of past contributions but a reflection of what the administration says is still a generous amount that will maintain America’s status as the world’s largest humanitarian donor.
Devex, a news organization covering global development, earlier reported details of the initiative and The Washington Post earlier reported on the cable. Amiri reported from New York.