In his final days, Senator Lindsey Graham was quietly working to prevent the United States from slashing its support for the United Nations refugee agency. The South Carolina Republican, who died suddenly this weekend, had been in close contact with UN High Commissioner for Refugees Barham Salih to stem what would be a dramatic reduction in American funding.
For over three decades, the U.S. was the largest donor to the UNHCR, but this year it has dropped to sixth place, according to UN officials. Graham, who had a long history of engaging on humanitarian issues, saw the cuts as a mistake—both morally and strategically. His death has now intensified a behind-the-scenes battle over whether the U.S. should continue funding the agency at all.
Barham, a former Iraqi president and a close friend of Graham's, was among the first to publicly mourn the senator. “I am deeply saddened by the passing of Senator Lindsey Graham, a valued partner over many years and a courageous voice in support of people displaced by conflict and persecution,” he wrote on social media. The two had worked together closely, particularly on Ukraine, where Graham visited frequently—his last trip to Kyiv was just a day before his death.
The UNHCR’s work in Ukraine illustrates the agency’s dual role: providing emergency aid while also trying to prevent displacement. American diplomats rarely venture beyond Kyiv, but UN staff are stationed in frontline cities like Kharkiv, Dnipro, and Zaporizhzhia, responding within minutes to drone and missile attacks. Their goal is to keep people in place, reducing the number of refugees. A similar approach is used in Mexico, where the agency runs facilities to prevent onward migration—a policy Graham supported as part of “Remain in Mexico.”
Barham has also pushed for a “50 by 35” initiative to cut the global refugee population in half within nine years. But that effort is now at risk. Over the past three weeks, a group of anti-immigration Republicans, along with the Trump administration’s nominee for deputy high commissioner, Simon Hankinson, have alleged that Barham and his deputy, Tressa Rae Finerty, are pushing for open borders and undermining President Trump. Critics say the accusations are more about political vendettas than reality, but they have reached senior levels of the State Department and the White House, which are now threatening to cut off all remaining U.S. funds.
Such a move would have far-reaching consequences. Defunding the UNHCR would not only create a humanitarian disaster but also undercut U.S. national security. Unlike the UN Relief and Works Agency, which has been infiltrated by Hamas in Gaza, the UNHCR focuses on resettling refugees rather than perpetuating their status. Cutting its funding could give Hamas a second chance in Gaza and increase refugee flows from Mexico into the U.S. It could also trigger an exodus of Ukrainians.
Graham’s death has left a void in the Senate, where he was a key voice on foreign policy. His legacy, as a political operator who loved the game, is now being invoked by both parties. But as his death exposes vulnerabilities in Trump’s foreign policy, the question is whether lawmakers will honor his memory by maintaining funding for the UNHCR.
“Today, both Republicans and Democrats eulogize Graham,” writes Michael Rubin, director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum. “To truly honor his memory, they should recognize that compassion and national security are not mutually exclusive. Even though there is rot in the United Nations system, there is also promise. The trick is to understand which is which.”
