Devex Newswire: UN to relocate staffers to cut costs

As the United Nations seeks to streamline its operations, major restructuring efforts are underway — including the relocation of staff and the elimination of redundant functions.

Also in this edition: A shake-up at the White House, divisions in the U.S. Congress, and the push to keep the U.S. and FAO on the same team.

Upcoming event: We’ve just passed the 100-day mark of the second Trump presidency — how much have the administration’s policies affected global development as we know it and what more does it have in store for the sector? To discuss this and more, register now for our Devex Pro briefing on Tuesday, May 6.

Toward cheaper pastures

The United Nations is asking its agencies in two of the world’s most expensive cities — Geneva and New York — to save costs by moving its staffers further afield. In a memo seen by my colleague Jenny Lei Ravelo, the office of the U.N. secretary-general asks the heads of each city’s secretariat to “identify as many functions as possible” that could be relocated or “otherwise reduced or abolished” if they were seen to be “duplicative or no longer viable.”

“A global review of the availability of office space and costs is currently under way,” adds the memo, which also states that agencies are expected to submit their reviews by May 16.  

The news comes amid other major cost-cutting shake-ups across the U.N. system, with many agencies already in the throes of restructuring their workforce. The World Health Organization, for example, is preparing to reduce its staff in Geneva and at its leadership level; the UN Refugee Agency, for another, is preparing for up to 6,000 job losses.

“Member states have no input in the process, and didn’t even ask for it, while staff aren’t being consulted for now,” Ian Richards, president of the U.N. Geneva staff union, tells Jenny.

Read: To cut costs, UN urges Geneva, NY offices to move staff to cheaper cities

ICYMI: UN appeals fall flat in face of Trump's budget steamroller

Further reading: As WHO lays off staff, why is transparency more crucial than ever? (Pro)

+ Not yet a Pro member? We offer a 15-day free trial. Try it out today to access all our exclusive content and events.

Waltzing up north

In other U.N. news, Mike Waltz was ousted from his role as U.S. President Donald Trump’s national security adviser yesterday — and within hours, he had been nominated to become the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Trump announced the unlikely pick on his social media platform Truth Social, a move that came just weeks after Waltz made headlines for adding  a journalist to a group chat discussing war plans in Yemen.
If confirmed by the Senate, Waltz — who has no prior multilateral or U.N. experience — would step into one of the administration’s most globally visible roles, succeeding a vacant post left open since Rep. Elise Stefanik’s nomination was withdrawn in March. The appointment comes amid broader turmoil within Trump’s foreign policy team: Secretary of State Marco Rubio is now temporarily juggling four top jobs, including Waltz’s previous role.

“From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our Nation’s Interests first,” Trump wrote on social media. “I know he will do the same in his new role.”

Waltz’s departure from the White House comes at the same time another high-profile character has announced he will be stepping away from Washington, D.C.: billionaire and head of the budget-slashing Department of Government Efficiency Elon Musk. Stating he was confident that DOGE could continue onward without his direct daily involvement,  Musk compared the office to Buddhism, claiming it had become “a way of life.”

Read: Trump nominates Mike Waltz to serve as UN ambassador

The fight against FAOxit

Dozens of agricultural groups are pushing the Trump administration not to part from the Food and Agriculture Organization, the agency that leads U.N. efforts to combat hunger, improve food security, and promote sustainable agricultural practices.

Last week, senior administration officials received a letter from more than 50 organizations stressing the importance of the Rome-based agency, which receives 14% of its budget from the United States. Over the last several months, FAO has received termination notices for more than 100 U.S.-funded programs worth $348 million — a set of moves that is forcing the agency to cut 600 staff positions across the world.

FAO has also come under fire in another way: My colleague Tania Karas tells me that last month, the United States laid out a vision for a very different type of agency — one that is aligned with U.S. interests, and pulls both diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and climate change-focused work. It forced an organization-wide review of FAO’s portfolio, Tania says, one that comes at the same time the U.S. is conducting its own 180-day assessment of involvement in multilateral institutions.
ICYMI: UN food agency caught in Trump administration’s crosshairs

+ For more content like this, sign up to Devex Dish, a weekly newsletter on the transformation of the global food system.

State of disunion

In other U.S. government news, a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing this week laid bare just how divided lawmakers remain over the Trump administration’s overhaul of the U.S. State Department — and who gets consulted (or doesn’t) in the process.
While Republicans said the State Department’s sweeping reorganization had been the result of “extensive consultation,” Democrats blasted the process as exclusionary and opaque, particularly after learning it included the elimination of 132 offices and roughly 700 staff positions without bipartisan input.

Rep. Brian Mast, the committee’s Republican chair, admitted the administration bypassed most Democrats, justifying the move by citing “woke” foreign aid programs from the Biden era. Democrats, meanwhile, decried the near-total dismantling of USAID and demanded answers for why top officials — including Secretary of State Marco Rubio — have yet to testify publicly on the matter.

Going forward, Mast said the reauthorization of the State Department will be “100% member-driven,” and that every lawmaker — Republican or Democrat — will have the opportunity to submit their ideas into a portal created for the task.

Read: US lawmakers clash over State Department’s future

Listen: In the latest episode of our podcast series, Devex’s Rumbi Chakamba, Raj Kumar, and Adva Saldinger discuss how the first 100 days of Trump's presidency have impacted global development and other top stories from this week.

Views from all over

The U.S. Congress isn’t the only place opposing viewpoints are rearing their heads: In the Devex opinion section, we have both insiders and outsiders with various visions of the future of aid.

While there is undeniable public sentiment against foreign aid “handouts,” for Owen Kirby, a former Trump-administration appointee, the current U.S. administration may be inadvertently dismantling important foreign policy tools and throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Take the Office of Transition Initiatives, or OTI, at USAID, which Kirby led during the first Trump administration: This cost-effective tool was designed to address national security threats in post-conflict or transitional situations. OTI was used to assist in various crises, such as rebuilding Christian communities in Iraq, stabilizing Sudan, and supporting negotiations in Afghanistan. Eliminating these programs hinders the U.S. ability to address complex global issues effectively, potentially undermining the very “America First” agenda the administration aims to advance.

Still, despite the gutting of the world's largest aid agency, “even after this wave of cuts, it is likely that total annual global flows will still sit at around $100 billion. That’s too much for us to ignore,”  ONE’s Adrian Lovett writes. So how do we rethink global development?

A redefinition of official development assistance, or ODA, must include emphasizing shared values, wealth redistribution, and addressing development challenges. Lovett also advocates for moving beyond ODA to a broader vision of international cooperation that includes clear outcomes, fairer financing, knowledge exchange, and a people-powered movement built on solidarity and empathy.

Then there’s the other side of the mirror, held up by Women Deliver’s President and CEO Maliha Khan: What if the aid system isn’t broken at all? What if it’s working exactly as it was designed to — “to uphold colonial power dynamics, advance donor governments’ national interests, and ensure that funding, decision-making, and accountability flow back to the global north, rather than to the people aid is meant to serve?”

In that case, efforts to swoop in with stop-gap funding by philanthropies or other types of funding would keep the system in place, when a more fundamental rethink of the aid architecture is needed.

Real solutions according to Khan? Debt cancellation, domestic resource mobilization, and trade policies that promote economic independence.

Read the opinion pieces:

• What the U.S. administration may not know about foreign aid.

• From cuts to common cause, how do we rethink global development?

• Foreign aid won’t save us. Neither will philanthropy.

+ Want to write an opinion article for Devex? Email us your pitch at editor@devex.com.

In other news

Outbreaks of anthrax and mpox in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo are worsening the humanitarian crisis in the region. [UN News]

If elected, a Coalition government promises to slash $813 million from Australia’s foreign aid budget, drawing criticism from humanitarian groups. [The Guardian]

Deep cuts to U.S. aid have disrupted humanitarian efforts and security at Syrian camps housing former Islamic State members, hindering repatriation and aid distribution, according to a report. [The New York Times]

Sign up to Newswire for an inside look at the biggest stories in global development.