Due to US Aid restrictions, the UN migration agency is struggling financially and has laid off thousands of people.

Due to severe financial difficulties brought on by reductions in U.S. foreign aid funding, the United Nations agency known as the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has been forced to fire thousands of employees.

With over 22,000 workers by the end of 2024, the group is battling claims that it is too closely cooperating with American political interests, especially when it comes to deportation measures.

Since Donald Trump took office in January, the IOM has reportedly seen significant budget cuts, which has resulted in a halt on the majority of U.S. foreign aid.

According to the study, these cuts have had a direct effect on the agency’s capacity to support its current initiatives and help vulnerable people.

IOM faces personnel layoffs and funding reductions. According to estimates, the IOM has been most impacted by reductions in U.S. foreign aid, which historically made up around 40% of its overall financing.

The agency’s spokeswoman cautioned that the individuals it helps will experience “more suffering, increased migration, and greater insecurity” as a result of these financial cuts.

“Without this vital support, conditions for the people impacted would be far worse,” the spokesperson said.

According to sources, the agency has already let go of thousands of workers and is still under pressure to make tough choices because of its precarious financial status.

We have to make some really hard decisions about staff because we simply can’t afford to pay staff when we’re not actually being paid for our work,” IOM chief Amy Pope told AFP in an interview.

IOM is under fire for allegedly endorsing deportation measures.
Additionally, the IOM has come under fire for its aided voluntary return (AVR) program, which some workers and former employees say is being used to justify deportation practices in the United States. Although the AVR program aids migrants in returning to their countries of origin, some contend that it is being used to “bluewash” President Trump’s deportation policies in the United States.

The term “bluewash” refers to an effort to make a contentious or troublesome activity seem more good or acceptable by linking it to an apparently altruistic or humanitarian endeavor.

On February 1st, IOM declared that it will increase its operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, including initiatives to assist migrants in returning to their native Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama.
The spokesman referred to this initiative as “a lifeline for stranded migrants,” highlighting the pressing need to assist individuals who are unable to remain in their current location and require assistance in returning home “safely and with dignity.”
Some employees, however, believe the organization’s credibility is being harmed by its too strong alignment with the US government.

As more layoffs are anticipated, tensions increase.
IOM personnel are worried about the continuous layoffs; some are afraid of more reductions. According to the study, one former worker called the rate of layoffs “quite a shock,” while others have called the situation “terrifying” because of the pressure on managers to reach cost-cutting goals.

Workers at IOM’s Geneva headquarters are anticipating more layoffs. There were concerns that up to one-third of the 550 employees at headquarters would lose their jobs as a result of directors being told to cut department costs by certain percentages, according to an internal letter seen by AFP.

Staff and union leaders have complained to the IOM about the sudden layoffs, stating that these cuts may have negative effects on the workers and the migrants they assist.

IOM defends its objective and denies deleting content.
The claim that the IOM deleted diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI)–promoting information from its website in response to pressure from the US government is another topic that has generated debate.

According to a Devex report, the agency allegedly removed information that may be seen as endorsing DEI, a concept that the Trump administration is thought to oppose.

IOM responded by saying that, following a year-long evaluation, it had updated its worldwide website, updating the material to reflect changing humanitarian ideals and conditions.
Some employees, however, have voiced their displeasure, saying that the agency shouldn’t lose its character in order to comply with certain U.S. interests.

These difficulties highlight the challenging situation facing the IOM as it navigates changing political landscapes, financial instability, and mounting internal criticism. The agency’s purpose and the future of its employees are still in doubt as it continues to deal with the effects of U.S. budget cuts.