The World Food Program has long been one of the most visible expressions of American leadership abroad. Through WFP, the United States has saved lives, stabilized fragile regions, supported American agriculture, and advanced U.S. foreign policy objectives simultaneously. That alignment was intentional, and for decades it worked.
Today, that alignment has collapsed. WFP has expanded in size, footprint, and cost without a corresponding increase in strategic discipline. It operates in too many countries without credible exit strategies, maintains redundant bureaucratic layers that dilute accountability, and increasingly substitutes for governments rather than enabling them to lead. At critical geopolitical moments, its public posture has fled away from U.S. policy, eroding donor confidence and complicated diplomacy. This is not a failure of humanitarian purpose; it is a failure of strategic direction.
Reform is therefore necessary, not to weaken humanitarian actions, but to restore its credibility, effectiveness, and alignment with U.S. national interests.
The organizing principle of reform must be clear: humanitarian assistance is temporary; national ownership is permanent. WFP should exist to respond to crises, stabilize systems, support recovery, and then transfer responsibility to governments and national institutions. The prevailing UN culture of indefinite presence, absent enforceable exit strategies, is incompatible with this principle and must end.
Organizationally and operationally, WFP requires decisive restructuring. Regional offices no longer provide meaningful strategic or operational value. They duplicate headquarters functions, add layers of management, slow decision-making, and inflate costs. They should be closed. Headquarters must be right-sized and refocused on policy direction, oversight, and performance management rather than institutional expansion. Country presences should be routinely reviewed, with closure as the default outcome where governments are able to assume responsibility. WFP should no longer maintain offices that do not materially contribute to strategic priorities, cannot demonstrate impact, or cannot justify their cost.
Don’t miss a beat! It’s easy to sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news! For the latest on what’s happening in Washington, D.C. and around the country in agriculture, just click here.
Cost discipline must be enforced across logistics and procurement. WFP’s costs are driven up by slow purchasing, fragmented sourcing, and weak contracting. Standard practice must shift to earlier procurement, consolidated buying, and long‑term framework agreements. Cost efficiency is a leadership obligation, not a technical exercise. Every dollar saved from overhead is a dollar redirected to stabilizing food systems and accelerating national self‑reliance.
U.S. support should be tied directly to alignment and performance. Assistance should prioritize governments that support U.S. foreign policy, enable humanitarian access, and commit to reforming food systems and governance. Leaders receiving U.S.‑funded aid must demonstrate transparency, accountability, and a clear plan to assume responsibility for food security, social protection, and market systems. Engagement should be time‑bound and conditioned on measurable progress toward transition.
Ending dependency requires shifting from food aid to food security. In agriculture‑dependent countries, WFP should focus on strengthening domestic production, storage, logistics, markets, and government capacity to manage food‑security information and shock‑responsive systems. Humanitarian aid must serve as a bridge to recovery, not a parallel structure. Caseload reduction, market recovery, and private‑sector investment should be explicit goals.
Humanitarian action must reinforce U.S. diplomacy. During my tenure as U.S. ambassador, WFP demonstrated how aligned humanitarian engagement can advance strategic objectives. In Sudan, stabilization efforts reduced internal fragmentation, created space for reconciliation, and supported the interim government’s path toward peace agreements and eventual participation in the Abraham Accords. This proved that when properly led, humanitarian platforms can be powerful instruments of U.S. soft power.
My own work extended beyond Sudan, building durable partnerships with European donors and Gulf states—partners central to the Abraham Accords and regional stabilization. The next executive director must cultivate the same relationships. These networks are essential for navigating complex environments such as Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and the Gulf–Horn of Africa corridor, including engagement with the UAE, in ways that reduce conflict drivers while advancing U.S. interests.
Recent crises underscore the need for institutional discipline. The United States cannot support humanitarian actors whose public positions undermine U.S. policy or key allies. Alignment and disciplined public posture must be conditions of continued U.S. support.
The next U.S.‑backed executive director must understand agriculture and system building, and have a proven record of reforming multilateral institutions without weakening U.S. leverage. They must also command credibility with European and Gulf donors to broaden WFP’s funding base while enforcing cost discipline and strategic alignment.
With such leadership, WFP can be reset as a lean, disciplined institution—restoring donor confidence, improving humanitarian impact, and ensuring U.S. resources advance both moral purpose and national interest. The United States does not need to choose between humanitarian leadership and strategic discipline; with decisive reform, it can deliver both.
Kip Tom is a farmer and former ambassador to the UN food and agriculture agencies.
.webp?t=1709232780)