In a rare reversal without formal explanation, the United States has quietly removed the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) from a controversial list of foreign aid cuts announced last week by the White House.
The Trump administration’s latest round of budget rescissions, totaling $4.9 billion in halted congressional appropriations, ignited bipartisan friction in Washington and left several international bodies scrambling to assess the impact. The cuts, framed as a push to “strip away woke, weaponised, and wasteful spending,” originally targeted a host of multilateral institutions — including the WTO and ILO, both headquartered in Geneva.
Initial memos circulated within diplomatic circles listed over $100 million in eliminated funding to the ILO, alongside nearly $30 million earmarked for the WTO. The announcements triggered immediate concern in Geneva, with both institutions initiating contingency measures to mitigate operational disruption.
However, by midweek, those concerns began to ease. Revised internal documents obtained by international delegates confirmed that both organizations had been omitted from the finalized rescission list — a development acknowledged internally, yet left unaddressed publicly by U.S. officials.
A senior ILO spokesperson confirmed that the organization was no longer included in the budget rollback, noting, “We are reviewing what this change signals for our future engagements with the U.S. government.” The WTO echoed similar sentiments, confirming its exclusion from the final cut but offering no speculation on the rationale behind the policy shift.
Though now spared from immediate budgetary harm, both bodies are still facing the long shadow of uncertainty. U.S. contributions — 22% of the ILO’s operating budget and over 11% of the WTO’s — remain unpaid for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, leaving financial planning in limbo. Historically, Washington has delayed such payments, but the current climate suggests a broader strategic recalibration.
Internally, the ILO has already undergone downsizing due to prior executive orders slashing U.S.-backed project funding. Nearly 200 staff positions linked to American-funded initiatives were initially flagged for termination, although over half were reassigned as other funding sources were tapped.
Analysts interpret the administration’s reversal as more political than procedural. The quiet removal of the WTO and ILO from the cut list may reflect concerns over diplomatic fallout or internal pushback from sectors reliant on global trade and labor cooperation. Still, the lack of transparency raises questions about the coherence of U.S. foreign aid policy — and its commitment to multilateralism moving forward.
For Geneva’s global institutions, the signal is clear: continued reliance on Washington’s financial goodwill comes with increasingly unpredictable terms.
