
Exclusive: UN to slash rations to Rohingya refugees by half to $6 per month, official says
"Yesterday, I was informed verbally, and today I received the letter confirming a $6.50 cut, which will take effect from April 1," said Mohammed Mizanur Rahman, Bangladesh's top official overseeing the refugee camps.
"What they are receiving now is already not enough, so it's hard to imagine the consequences of this new cut,' he told Reuters by phone.
A spokesperson for the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP) in Dhaka, Bangladesh's capital, did not immediately return a request for comment.
Bangladesh is sheltering more than one million Rohingya, members of a persecuted Muslim minority who fled violent purges in neighbouring Myanmar mostly in 2016 and 2017, in overcrowded camps in the southern Cox's Bazar district where they have limited access to job opportunities or education.
Roughly 70,000 fled to Bangladesh last year, driven in part by growing hunger in their home Rakhine state, Reuters has reported.
In a letter to Rahman, seen by Reuters, the WFP said it had been trying to raise funds to keep the rations at $12.50 per month but had failed to find donors.
A cut in rations to anything less than $6 would 'fall below the minimum survival level and fail to meet basic dietary needs,' it said.
The WFP said it accepted that "given the refugees' complete reliance on humanitarian aid", the cut would strain families struggling to meet basic needs and heighten "increasing tensions within the camps". It said it had appealed to multiple donors for funding and that cost-saving measures alone were not enough.
The WFP did not specify if the reduction was due to the decision by the Trump administration in the United States to cut foreign aid globally, Rahman said. But he said it was likely as the U.S. was the top donor to the refugee response.
The U.S. Embassy in Dhaka did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
TURMOIL IN AID SECTOR
The decision by the Trump administration to abruptly halt most U.S. foreign aid and dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has caused turmoil in the humanitarian sector globally, as U.S-funded programmes providing lifesaving care for millions of people in countries such as Sudan and South Africa received termination notices.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had dismissed concerns that Washington was ending foreign aid, saying waivers had been provided to life-saving services.
The head of the U.N refugee agency Filippo Grandi said on Friday in a post on X during a visit to Cox's Bazar that if donor support to the camps 'decreases dramatically - which may happen - the huge work done by the Bangladesh government, aid agencies and refugees will be impacted, putting thousands at risk of hunger, disease and insecurity.'
A previous round of ration cuts to Rohingya in 2023 that reduced the amount of food rations to $8 monthly led to a sharp increase in hunger and malnutrition, according to the U.N.
Within months, they said, 90% of the camp population 'struggled to access an adequate diet' and more than 15% of children suffered from malnutrition, the highest rate recorded.
The cut was later reversed.
Now, with $6 monthly, the refugees would receive the equivalent of about 24 Bangladesh taka daily.
'For comparison, a banana costs around 10-12 taka, and an egg costs 12-14 taka,' said Rahman, the Cox's Bazar-based official.
USAID has said it has supported the United Nations in providing emergency food and nutrition assistance - including cash transfers for food, food vouchers and in-kind food assistance - to vulnerable populations in Bangladesh and Myanmar since 2017.
Rahman said last month that the U.S contributed more than 50% of the funds for the Rohingya humanitarian response in 2024, about $300 million.
The recent aid cuts by Washington meant there was already a "squeeze on operations" at hospitals and in waste management, he said, with five U.S.-funded hospitals having to reduce services. He said if food were to be reduced it would create a "grievous problem".
"These people are stateless, ill-fated and should not be suffering due to the funding crunch," Rahman said.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
3 minutes ago
- Reuters
US trans woman challenges Dutch asylum rejection
AMSTERDAM, Aug 20 (Reuters) - A 28-year-old transgender woman from the U.S. began a legal challenge on Wednesday to the rejection of her asylum application in the Netherlands where she had sought political asylum saying she no longer felt safe in the United States. Veronica Clifford-Carlos, a visual artist from California, came to the Netherlands - the first country to legalise same-sex marriage and known for its strong protections of LGBT rights - because the Trump administration's policies towards transgender people made her feel unsafe, her lawyer's office said. The case, the first of its kind in the Netherlands, will be heard in a court in Amsterdam starting Wednesday, with a ruling expected in four to six weeks. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders limiting transgender rights, banned transgender people from serving in the armed forces, and rescinded anti-discrimination policies for LGBTQ+ people. Dutch advocacy group LGBT Asylum Support, which backs the lawsuit, is currently assisting around 20 U.S. trans individuals with pending asylum claims. According to data from the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), 29 Americans applied for asylum in the Netherlands during the first half of this year. In previous years there were between nine and 18 applicants per year, an IND spokesperson said. "The IND generally states that discrimination by authorities and fellow citizens can be considered an act of persecution if it is so severe that victims can no longer function socially and societally," LGBT Asylum Support said in a statement. "But the IND maintains that there are no grounds for exceptional treatment of transgender and queer refugees from the U.S."


Spectator
14 minutes ago
- Spectator
Putin hasn't made any real concessions yet
After the jaw-dropping spectacle of the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska, there was another full day of theatre on Monday as Trump hosted European leaders and President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. Yet the results of this three-day diplomatic pageant are embarrassingly modest. One of Trump's trumpeted achievements is Russia's alleged agreement to western security guarantees for Ukraine. It was President Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff who first announced this breakthrough, with some fanfare, in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. 'We sort of were able to… get an agreement,' Witkoff said, 'that the United States could offer Article 5 protection [for Ukraine], which was the first time we had ever heard… the Russians agree to that.' The word 'sort of' does a lot of heavy lifting here because Russia's unprecedented concession is not a concession at all, or certainly not Russia's concession. It is the United States that, ignoring Zelensky's pleas, has refused to provide tangible security guarantees to Ukraine for fear that doing so could lead to a direct conflict with Russia. But, ever the salesman, Trump has managed to sell a US concession to Ukraine as Russia's major concession and an indication that Putin is willing to talk peace. As for Putin, it remains to be seen what he has actually agreed to. During his joint press conference with Trump, the Russian President referred vaguely to the importance of assuring Ukraine's security. 'Of course, we are willing to work on this,' he offered. But it is important to remember that already in the spring of 2022, during the ill-fated talks in Istanbul, the Russians provisionally agreed to a security mechanism for Ukraine that would involve the United States and other western powers. However, Putin made it clear then that he expected to have the right to veto any collective action to help Ukraine. It is unclear whether this expectation was brought up during his brief interaction with Trump in Anchorage. Thus constrained, any US security guarantee would not be worth the paper it's written on. The other major uncertainty pertains to Russia's willingness (or not) to permit Western contingents in Ukraine as part of a peace settlement. Moscow has repeatedly rejected the idea of troops on the ground in Ukraine if these troops are from Nato member states. The latest rebuttal came even as Trump was meeting European leaders in Washington in the form of a scornful comment by the eccentric spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova who criticised Great Britain – which, along with France, has been one of the leaders of the so called 'coalition of the willing' and has broached the subject of sending contingents to Ukraine – for 'risky and ill-thought-through geopolitical gambits' and for trying to 'obstruct the careful work of the Russian and American negotiators.' Helping Maria Zakharova's case, President Trump has not been very forthcoming with concrete details of US participation. His message – as he put it in a joint press conference with President Zelensky – is that Europe would be 'the first line of defence… but we're gonna help them out also.' What that 'help' may amount to remains to be seen. For now, at least, Trump's security promise sounds rather hollow. So, the big question – what kind of security guarantees Russia has agreed to, and what kind of security guarantees the United States might be willing to offer – remains completely obscure. In the absence of a breakthrough on this important question, Trump's diplomacy is little more than a fireworks show: it offers a momentary distraction from the gruelling reality of war. Trump has now kicked the ball back over to the Russians and the Ukrainians. He expects Putin and Zelensky to meet in person and just work it out among themselves. In a middle-of-the-night phone call with Trump, Putin promised – per Russian readout – to 'consider the possibility of raising the level of representatives of Ukrainian and Russian sides… participating in direct negotiations.' In the meantime, Russian forces continued pummelling targets across Ukraine. Putin has offered no concrete evidence that he is willing to make a deal on terms that would fall short of Ukraine's capitulation. 'If there aren't concessions, if one side gets everything they want, that's called surrender,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared on August 17, shortly after Alaska. But he has failed to show what concessions Putin has made. By all indications, Putin has promised nothing in the way of substance, yet just enough for Trump to drop all talk of 'severe consequences' for Russia if he continued to drag his feet. Shortly before his meeting with European leaders, Trump was caught in hot mic moment: 'I think he wants to make a deal for me,' he said. 'Do you understand? As crazy as it sounds.' Trump may be crazy to believe Putin's good intentions, but he has had us all glued to TV screens in the hope that somehow, against all evidence to the contrary, he will in the end pull a rabbit out of the hat and finally deliver peace. There has been nothing in the hat so far.


Reuters
33 minutes ago
- Reuters
Switzerland moves to strengthen its competitiveness after US tariffs
ZURICH, Aug 20 (Reuters) - Switzerland is intensifying efforts to strengthen its attractiveness as a business location, its government said on Wednesday, after being hit with some of the highest U.S. tariffs worldwide. Efforts will focus on regulatory relief for Swiss companies, and new rules incurring high costs for businesses could be pushed back, the government said in a statement. U.S. President Donald Trump this month imposed U.S. import tariffs of 39% on Swiss goods, though pharmaceuticals and some other sectors have so far been spared the duties. "(The government) wants to decisively press ahead with its economic policy agenda and is focusing on reducing the regulatory burden on companies," the government said. Geographical diversification and Swiss companies' access to alternative international markets should also be strengthened, the statement said. The new U.S. levies currently affect around 10% of Swiss goods exports, and could have potentially severe consequences for some companies, the government said. Switzerland does not anticipate a recession akin to the global financial crisis or the pandemic, it added.