thank you for having me, sarah. what effect has the us aid funding decision had on what you do? well, there's great anxiety across the whole humanitarian system — and, of course, this isn't just the united nations and the humanitarian agencies that i co—ordinate. it's ngos, it's front line workers, it's the communities. most importantly, it's the people we're here to serve, the people whose lives we're here to save. so, there is anxiety. clearly, we're waiting at the moment. we're in this review phase, and we'll see to what extent the cuts transpire. you know, that's where we are

in the process right now. ok, but the effect, i mean, the immediate thing was to freeze all funding, and then secretary of state marco rubio said, "i issued a blanket waiver that said, if this is a life—saving programme, if it's providing food or medicine or anything that is saving lives, you're not included in the freeze." so, what do you understand by that? what would you understand by that? well, that... you know, that's welcome clarification, because, of course, most of what we do, we would put in that category. you know, it's the food that the world food programme distributes, it's the life—saving work that unicef do to support the world's children. it's the support that the world health organization do to keep people alive in health centres. support to refugees. you know, this work, the core of what we do is that life—saving work. ok, but you have been to the us and you have argued, i imagine, for it to continue. do they accept what you consider life—saving to be life—saving ? well, let's see.

i mean, that's where we are. we're in a conversation at the moment. we're putting, you know, as humanitarian organisations and ngos across the sector, across the humanitarian community, we're putting in requests for waivers for the most essential work, and we're having that debate... have you had any...? ..case by case. have you had anything accepted? yes. there have been waivers already for parts of that life—saving work. it's very early days, the administration is new, but there is at least that dialogue going back and forth about the nature of what we do — and, you know, let me be clear. i think we should be more efficient. more innovative. i think, actually, we should make savings, we should reduce the duplication and the bureaucracy — anything that gets in the way of us saving lives. actually, i welcome that debate, and, you know, let's be clear as well, governments have a right to demand that un agencies, that ngos, spend their taxpayers�* money wisely. we've got to make a stronger effort to bring populations with us, to bring voters

with us, if we're going to sustain this level of funding, which the world needs right now. right, and what the us have said is, the administration, what it objects to is any project supporting diversity and inclusion, transgender rights, family planning, abortion access and, of course, any wasteful spending. on those first issues, are those things that ocha covers? those aren't major programmes, but, i mean, let's be clear — diversity is a very, very good thing. i want an organisation that is diverse. i have a fantastic group of people working for me from all over the world, and that diversity makes us stronger. i want to work for equality. but is there money coming from the us... i want to work for inclusion. ..that is being spent on diversity programmes? tiny, tiny proportion of what ocha does. of course, we've got big un agencies doing very, very vital work in those fields, and i imagine that those are the ones that the us is most focused on. you know, i hope that those organisations will get sustained funding to do their important work —

but, you know, i'vejust come back from gaza, where the needs are massive, and what we're doing there is getting 800 trucks a day into gaza, we've fed a million people in the three weeks since the ceasefire. we're getting health centres opened up. we're giving people... you know, 80,000 tents have gone in so that people can start to rebuild their lives. that's life—saving work. i want to come back to gaza in a moment, but i want tojust stay on the principle, because there were examples used — $2 million for gender activities in guatemala... this is not an 0cha project. ..for activities to strengthen trans—led organisations in guatemala. 1.5 million to serbia for gender inclusion. are these projects that you would say, "that's giving aid a bad name"? so, those are projects which donors are very willing to fund and support, otherwise the agencies wouldn't be spending the money in that way — but, you know, you're talking about... the us was willing to fund. you're talking about... it is no longer willing to fund. ..tiny, tiny digit millions, there, amongst our campaign this yearfor $47 billion

to save 190 million lives, to get life—saving support to that number of people. so, i don't think we should skew the whole conversation to there. it should be about, how do we save as many lives as possible? so, of the 14 billion, how much...? do you have some sense of what you're going to lose that comes from the united states? well, i mean, the us funds over 40% of our big appeals right now, and so us support... you know, the us has been a humanitarian superpower, let's be honest, over decades now. they've been our number one donor to the humanitarian response globally. so, we've helped hundreds of millions of people over decades because of that support coming in — and, clearly, not all of that money is going to come in the future, and so we won't reach as many people — but it all depends on what we get exemptions for, what the us agrees to continue funding, and, as you say, secretary rubio has put the emphasis on that essential life—saving work, and that's exactly where we want to put it. have lives been lost already

as a result of the decision? i'm not sure — there are programmes being cut by ngos, there are programmes being cut across un agencies at the moment. in the front line work that we're doing — you know, i've been in darfur, i've been in gaza, i've been in kupiansk on the front lines of the ukraine—russia war, i was in damascusjust after the change of regime — those programmes, the surge in aid that we're carrying out there is continuing, and in gaza in particular... right, so, as far as you know... ..that money is coming through. ..no lives have been lost so far. as far as i know, no lives have been lost — but... will lives be lost? well, clearly, if you lose billions of dollars in funding, then you're not going to be able to reach as many people as we would wish to — but we're already in a massive funding crisis. last year... understood. ..our campaigns were under half funded, and even in the best case scenario, i'm not going to raise the 47 billion i need. it's notjust america. right. the cuts are coming from everywhere. and you're making judgments every day, brutal, brutal judgments about prioritising things. yeah.

but here's one that you say is about life—saving work. in the worst case scenario, how many lives are you talking about? it's impossible to estimate at this time. those choices are brutal. so, our estimate is we need to reach over 300 million people in the coming year, and we've already made the very, very tough, brutal choice, as you say, to reduce that number to 190 million that we could reach if we raised $47 billion — and i'm sorry, these numbers just seem huge and crazy, and they're hard to picture, but behind those numbers are 190 million people that we seek to reach with our life—saving support.

but, you know, i've worked with us diplomats, usaid and a lot of duplication in the aid sector... and fraud? and fraud? and we uncover cases of fraud every year, and, you know, one of the things i have to do is to take action on that fraud, to kick people out of the organisations, to make sure that we've got systems that are robust enough to deal with that — but out there in the field, you know, we've got thousands of people working absolutely every day to feed people who are starving, to reach people who are suffering from pandemics, to give people shelter who don't have shelter, to stop the horrific gender—based violence that we're finding in da rfur and elsewhere.

this is a massive, massive sector, but it is doing utterly essential work. and when you have made that argument in the us, as you have, and you said the discussions will continue, what has been the response? you know, the incoming us government clearly wants to do some serious work around how us taxpayers�* money is spent — and, as i say, i appreciate that. i think governments have... they do have every right to hold us to account and make sure we're spending effectively, but, as you quoted, the secretary of state, marco rubio, has said, "let's make sure this money goes towards saving lives." 0urjob is to show that that's what we will be doing, and i'm determined to do that — and, by the way, i was determined to do that before. you started that argument, and i'm just wondering what comes back at you. does it... ? do they come back saying, "show us"? do they come back saying, "no"? do they come back saying, "look, you're just not going to get this money"? they come back saying, "show us," and that's ourjob now. to be honest, though, i sit here with donors all the time and they say, "show us," and myjob

is to make a very clear link between the money that we're given by uk taxpayers, us taxpayers, all of our traditional donors, all of our donors, and show that it's reaching people... sure. ..that outcomes... more than 40% of your funding comes from the us. in value terms, it's a huge figure. they give more in government aid than any other country. in percentage terms, in percentage of gdp, it is not. it's about 0.3%, according to the brookings institute — but when you look at that figure, for what you're funded by, why should it be so weighted to the us?

we need to go back to the stage... you know, apartheid didn't falljust because... individuals or companies? i would say both. so the private sector is already a major, major donor to what we do in the humanitarian space. but i think, you know... i wonder whether we could go i wonder whether we could go out there and say, "look, the uk government is no longer able to do 0.7%," the figure out there and say, "look, that, you know, was so iconic for so many years. but why don't we go to the public and say, "are you able to help us here? can you step in to save these lives?" right. let's turn to gaza, which you brought up earlier.

you havejust come back from there, where you are coordinating aid. and as we speak, there is a question mark over whether the ceasefire will be sustained. now, it's worth saying that you are a former british ambassador to lebanon. mm—hm. you know a lot about the middle east. if the ceasefire fails, what are the consequences? devastating. you know, i was in gaza for a couple of days, and you see people picking through the rubble looking for their relatives. you see dogs picking through the rubble looking for the corpses. and the dogs are fat, and the people are thin. the devastation there is beyond anything i'd imagined. you have me and my staff, most of whom have lost their homes and lost family members, going back to their areas in northern gaza and having to use gps to find where their homes were. i visited, you know, the only hospital that survived in the north, that stayed open.

survived in the north, that stayed open, you know, where doctors were operating, delivering babies under sniperfire and where one doctor, dr mahmoud, has written on the wall, "tell them we did what we could." and the people of gaza that i met are asking us that question. did we do what we could during this period? and it's, you know, a responsibility for me to tell those stories having been in there, because you can't go. the bbc can't go. so, because international journalists can't go, we've been relying on aid workers to tell us. we've been relying on localjournalists. was there something when you went that you thought, "i hadn't quite prepared myself for this, despite all i've heard?" and i really did try to prepare myself. you know, i talked to a lot of people who'd gone in. i've talked to people who've done this job in the past to try to get that resilience. you see the pictures — you know, you show them all the time — but nothing prepares you. i prepared for the worst, and it was worse. just it's the scale

of the devastation, particularly in northern gaza. just miles and miles, you just drive through the mud, and the sense ofjust desolation and despair. and by the way, i also visited a kibbutz in southern israel that was attacked by the act of terrorism on october 7, and i met survivors there. one in four people there were killed or taken hostage, and it's important to recognise that, too. but in gaza now, we've got almost 50,000 deaths. we've got 100,000 at least injured. we have a new category now of people we're trying to reach, and the acronym is...single injured child, no living relatives. so the scale of what we have to achieve there is massive,

its side of the deal. no caravans. are they right? so the ceasefire agreement is incredibly complex, and i'm very involved talking i was clear when i was there that we are getting broadly the cooperation we need to get the cooperation we need to get those trucks through. those trucks through. we're delivering more trucks than we were asked to deliver, so we're delivering at scale. so we're delivering at scale. i need that pipeline, the convoys to continue... and israel is allowing those trucks in? israel is allowing those trucks in... so israel is honouring its side of the bargain. israel is allowing the truck numbers in that we wanted. now, we have a daily debate

about what goes on those trucks, the size of the trucks, whether we're getting enough tents. i'm confident that we are delivering life—saving tents at scale. are you being refused tents? because you make the point about the deal, the deal is complicated. yeah. it is also detailed, and it has numbers of tents. we have got the number of tents in that we committed to get in. 0k. now, hamas are challenging israel on a number of facts around the wider aspects of the ceasefire and the ceasefire deal. but they're not telling the truth on this? but i am confident that i'm getting through, that we're getting through the humanitarian supplies that we were asked to get through and which we promised to get through. and if the ceasefire stays in place, then we'll continue to do that. you know, before the ceasefire, you know, i was having convoys of 80 trucks go in, and 79 of them were getting looted. you'd get1 truck in 80 through. we were getting fired upon by the israeli forces. we got fired on a couple of days ago, by the way, by the israeli forces. but we were getting our trucks through, but in a tiny, tiny scale. now — much, much larger than that. and as a result, famine, real danger that has been averted in gaza.

right. so part of this — it's not the specific reason hamas gave, but they have mentioned it — is the longer—term plan put forward by president trump... yeah. ..which is to clear out palestinians. and he's confirmed that his view is they're cleared out permanently, that the us owns it. what do you make of that? is there any sort of...? do you engage with it? of course we engage with it. president trump is a powerful character. the most powerful man in the world. the us is a permanent member of the security council. you know, if president trump can deliver a two—state solution and genuine peace in the middle east, i'll be the first to be applauding and celebrating. is this the way to do it? we need that, and... well, let's see. i haven't seen the finer detail of this. i'm not sure anyone has seen the finer detail of this proposal yet. now... he's been pretty clear, though. nothing... i would say that forced displacement, if that's what's on the table, is not going to help. you know, i talked to a lot of palestinians,

and it's important that they're consulted on this. a plan cannotjust be imposed on the people living in gaza and elsewhere, so you've got to talk to the palestinians, too. what they're telling me is they're not going anywhere. they're taking the tents that we're giving them... so is it ethnic cleansing? ..they�*re taking the food... well, it would be ethnic cleansing if people are being forcibly displaced. now, let's see what is in this plan as it emerges... and the idea of the us just taking it, owning it? well, let's see what really lies behind that. i think that, you know, seizing land is one of those... ..one of those ideas which i think... ..i hope that the international system was created — and international humanitarian law in particular — to prevent. let's wait and see what emerges. i've seen... i was in the region over the weekend.

the future of gaza? the palestinian people are despairing and hopeless. the israelis... and there's no solution to this apart from two states living beside each other. security, justice, opportunity — and i haven't heard a better idea than that yet. you're going to the drc. mm—hm. or was it because you thought of the wider picture of

so i hope... in our direction whether we like it or not.

absolutely. and by the way, that's not so different to a british from our taxpayers actually serving our interests as well?" for delivering that. right.

my team have put this badge on me to remind me that i'm here to speak on behalf of the un today.

the world a safer place. solidarity and for reaching out and caring at a human level thank you, sarah. hello there.

now, if you haven't downloaded it already, get the bbc weather app. are going to stay cloudy and it's going to stay cold and temperatures early in the morning are western—most parts of england and wales, we may start to break up the cloud and give us some sunshine. parts of scotland. around, maybe not quite as thick, any drizzle dying out. another cold day.

head over the irish sea at the end of the day. maybe a touch brighter. a little bit milder trying to come into western areas.