If America Walks Away from the UN, How Will Africa Keep the Lights On?

By Aksah Italo
Published on 01/15/26

President Donald Trump is no ordinary president. His approach to global governance, marked by a systematic disengagement from institutions that have underpinned the post World War II international order, has sent shockwaves through Africa and beyond.

In a series of unprecedented moves, the Trump administration has signalled its withdrawal from close to 66 international organisations, roughly half of them operating under the United Nations (UN) umbrella.

Trump has justified these withdrawals as a defence of national interest. In his telling, many of these bodies are “mismanaged, wasteful, unnecessary”, and captured by agendas that run counter to the priorities of the United States. Yet his rhetoric has been inconsistent.

At times, he has described the United Nations as an institution of “incredible potential,” while at others he has dismissed it as irrelevant and obsolete.

Through these rough and contradictory turns, one question persists: is the world order falling apart, or is it merely being reshaped?

That question acquires a sharper edge in Africa, where over 30 percent of development support flows through US led multilateral institutions. UN programmes, including the UN Population Fund, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), and climate frameworks such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), have long provided technical assistance, development planning, humanitarian relief, and climate adaptation support. These interventions are not peripheral; they are woven directly into national development strategies across much of the continent.

Their disruption is therefore not abstract. It is immediate.

African governments have repeatedly pointed to climate vulnerability as one of their most pressing challenges.

A joint report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Food Programme (WFP), issued in late 2024, illustrates the scale of the crisis. According to the report, Nigeria, Sudan, and Ethiopia rank among the most food insecure countries in the world. The causes are familiar and compounding: erratic weather patterns, prolonged conflict, and deepening economic strain.

In Ethiopia, a three year drought beginning in 2020 left millions exposed, only to be followed by devastating floods over the past two years.

Multilateral frameworks have historically coordinated finance, capacity building, and policy guidance for climate resilience in such settings. Yet under the Trump administration, issues such as climate policy, migration, and labour are increasingly framed as “diversity driven” or “woke” initiatives, portrayed as being at odds with US interests.

The implications are tangible. Funding streams, technical assistance, and collaborative platforms are being recalibrated according to a transactional America First philosophy.

The US withdrawal extends even to the Office of the Special Adviser on Africa (OSAA), a UN body tasked with enhancing international support for Africa’s peace, security, and development.

OSAA serves as a critical link between African states, the UN system, and global partners, monitoring commitments, promoting African priorities, and facilitating dialogue around the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2063.

While the United States does not directly fund OSAA, its disengagement signals a broader retreat from multilateral engagement that risks weakening support structures Africa has relied upon for decades.

The African Union has voiced concern. AU Commission Chairperson Mahmoud Ali Youssouf has stressed the instrumental role of multilateral institutions in peace building, humanitarian response, and the implementation of both Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Any reduction in operational capacity, he warned, could undermine development gains, weaken community resilience, and stall conflict consolidation, especially in fragile or conflict affected settings. The AU has urged continued dialogue among the United States, the UN, and international partners to safeguard essential multilateral functions, enhance accountability, and protect the most vulnerable.

“Weakening these institutions weakens Africa’s progress and its peace,” he said.

The UNFCCC, from which the United States has withdrawn, exemplifies what is at stake. Ratified by the US Senate in 1992 under President George H W Bush, the treaty requires wealthier nations to report on climate policies and track greenhouse gas emissions.

Critics argue that withdrawal forfeits Washington’s ability to shape global climate initiatives, potentially weakening the mechanisms through which African countries access finance and technical support. While a future administration could rejoin the UNFCCC or the Paris Agreement, the immediate effect is a dilution of US influence in multilateral climate governance.

Africa’s reliance on the United States has never rested solely on bilateral aid. Instead, African governments have leaned on institutions underwritten by American funding and political authority.

Ethiopia, for example, was one of the largest recipients of USAID funding in Africa, receiving more than 1.7 billion dollars in 2023 across health, humanitarian, and economic programmes. Other major recipients include Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Kenya, South Sudan, Uganda, Mozambique, Tanzania, South Africa, Zambia, and Malawi, each receiving 400 million dollars or more in US development assistance in the same year.

Country level estimates suggest US bilateral aid to Kenya averaged approximately 931 million dollars annually in recent years, reflecting sustained investment in health, governance, and economic growth.

The risks of disruption are not theoretical. Ngashi Ngongo, a senior official at the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, warned during a recent media briefing that many African public health programmes depend on US funding channelled through the World Health Organization. Any reduction in that support, he cautioned, would weaken disease response efforts across the continent.

The United States has often been the largest contributor to multilateral institutions, providing flexible financing that shapes priorities, enforces operational discipline, and stabilises programmes. Withdrawal does not close these institutions overnight. It weakens them quietly.

In 2023, the United States was the largest donor within the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee, providing approximately 66 billion dollars in official development assistance. Of this, about 13.2 billion dollars was allocated to Africa through bilateral channels.

Total US contributions to the multilateral system reached roughly 27.5 billion dollars in 2022, with the UN system accounting for 44.4 percent of those funds. Though often pooled with other donors, these contributions sustain a substantial share of programmes in health, food security, governance, and humanitarian response.

Withdrawal carries practical consequences. By early January 2026, the United States owed approximately 1.5 billion dollars in unpaid UN regular budget contributions, underscoring how abrupt funding disruptions can inject uncertainty into programmes supporting member states, including those in Africa.

The exit from the UNFCCC is particularly consequential. For African countries, climate adaptation finance and technical support are not optional extras; they are central to survival and development.

Analysts warn that the exit from 66 organisations reflects a broader US retreat from multilateral governance, weakening frameworks that underpin climate policy, security cooperation, and development planning.

Mohamed Adow, Director of Power Shift Africa, wrote on LinkedIn that retreating from international climate agreements at a moment when climate impacts are intensifying undermines not only global solidarity but effective policymaking itself.

He has described the US withdrawal from bodies such as the UNFCCC and the IPCC as “ignorant and reckless,” arguing that it erodes the collective capacity to respond to a crisis that Africa did little to cause but suffers disproportionately.

With Washington stepping back, the continent faces not just a funding gap but a strategic void.

In a world where global cooperation is fracturing, Africa must now recalibrate, adapt, and assert its priorities, or risk drifting in the currents of a new, unsteady world order.