The international humanitarian system faces a crisis of trust and legitimacy, while the humanitarian space is shrinking together with the funds allocated for it. This is not simply a consequence of the lack of money allocated, but it is an indicator of a wider change in the international order that requires organizations to find new strategies and develop new skills in order to survive.
The humanitarian space is shrinking
Despite the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, humanitarian action is increasingly shaped by power politics. Aid is shifting from a needs-based system grounded in global solidarity toward a transactional model in which donor states pursue economic or political returns in a climate of growing political hostility and indifference toward the humanitarian objective itself, using humanitarian cooperation as a bargaining chip within bilateral relationships.
This trend is not isolated, but it reflects a broader change in the world order. Global cooperation is unraveling, delivery of aid is increasingly seen by donors and bilateral partners as a mechanism to further alternative political or developmental objectives, and accountability mechanisms are weakening, creating a challenging environment for humanitarian implementors focused purely on service provision and delivery.
At the same time, the operational environment for aid workers is becoming more hostile and technologically complex. Rapidly evolving weapons and tactics, such as drones, have been reportedly used to attack NGOs and to surveil aid operations and the communities they serve.
States are further constraining humanitarian space by arresting and detaining aid workers at unprecedented levels, with at least 165 humanitarian staff detained in 2025 alone, aiming to intimidate or obtain leverage against organizations and/or their donor partners.
These risks are aggravated by the rise of weaponized narratives and harmful information that often serves institutional needs rather than engaging the public meaningfully.
Global crises persist, while funds decrease
Against this backdrop of political pressure, operational risk, and declining trust, global humanitarian needs continue to rise even as the financial capacity to respond is rapidly contracting, with a 50% shrinking of the global humanitarian funding.
Currently, one in five children worldwide are living in or fleeing conflict zones, and 239 million people require humanitarian assistance. Yet by late November 2025, humanitarian funding had reached only USD 12 billion, the lowest level in a decade, further diminished by inflation and declining year-on-year contributions.
As a result, humanitarian organisations are being asked to do more with far less.
The restructuring of USAID and significant cutbacks by other major donors have produced budget shortfalls of up to 60% across the multilateral system. This triggered a domino effect, including reduced support for local partners and intensified competition between international and grassroots actors for shrinking funds.
Under pressure from stop-work orders, international organisations pulled US funding with little notice to frontline partners. This translated in en masse laid off of staff, and those who remained were left to deal with the fallout from communities suddenly cut off from support infrastructures on which they had learned to rely, sometimes with little explanation and a generalised feeling of abandonment.
As traditional funding sources decline, attention has increasingly turned toward so-called emerging donors, including Gulf states that ranked among the top ten humanitarian spenders in 2025, and private sector partnerships.
While some of these partnerships may improve or streamline aid delivery, the sector lacks shared standards and a common understanding of how humanitarian principles apply to corporate engagement.
These tensions are becoming even more pronounced as technology companies collaborate with international humanitarian organizations on projects intended to support vulnerable populations, such as improving service delivery or providing digital tools for aid. At the same time, these same companies may engage in other initiatives that conflict with the principles or values of the organizations they partner with, creating conflict for humanitarian organizations attempting to maintain ethic fundraising policies, while still fulfilling their commitments to beneficiary communities.
Impacts of the new order on civilians
The financial contraction that humanitarian organisations are facing translates directly into life-altering consequences for civilians. What was described as the annus horribilis of the humanitarian system in 2025 is continuing to unfold into 2026, as the sector’s financial crisis proves to be not a temporary disruption but a forced remodelling of international aid and humanitarian response.
As humanitarian actors are now confronting escalating crises with funding levels comparable to those of 2016, a process of “geographic reprioritisation” in which responses are increasingly concentrated in select countries or regions while others are deprioritised or neglected altogether is the direct consequence. This approach is formalised through so-called “hyper-prioritised” response plans, which divide humanitarian crises into those that receive top-tier attention and those that do not.
Under the UN-led appeals for 2026, agencies aim to reach 87 million people while requesting USD 23 billion in funding, the lowest funding request since 2017 and the fewest people targeted in a decade.
Tens of millions of people identified as being in need are therefore excluded from planned responses altogether.
Within this framework, disparities between crises are becoming increasingly pronounced. Beyond these headline figures lie deeper trade-offs: the prioritization process obscures difficult decisions about which services are cut first, including education, protection, and support for survivors of gender-based violence, as well as who is excluded when response plans focus narrowly on recent shocks rather than protracted needs. The result is a growing gap between people identified as being in need and those actually targeted for assistance, a gap that is set to widen in 2026 when fewer than 60% of people in need will be targeted, and only 36% under hyper-prioritised plans.
How can organizations adapt?
In this constrained and volatile environment, humanitarian organisations are under pressure to rethink how they operate and what adaptation means in practice.
One proposed response gaining renewed prominence is localisation, framed as part of a broader reset of the humanitarian system and a way to operate with fewer resources. While localisation has become more popular, its re-emergence has raised concerns about whether it is prompted as a need-based reform or as a cost-saving strategy in a time of financial contraction. There is a clear risk that rapid international drawdowns could leave local actors absorbing responsibility without adequate funding, support, or decision-making power, and potentially facing blame if transitions fail.
Beyond operational restructuring, adaptation also requires a fundamental shift in how humanitarian organisations communicate and engage the public. The sector faces a growing challenge in making a compelling case for why people should care. Simply stating that a crisis is impacting civilian wellbeing or invoking humanitarian values is no longer sufficient. Organisations must actively persuade audiences and construct narratives that resonate in a crowded and hostile information environment.
At the same time, organisations are required to become more flexible and adaptable in response to rapidly changing political contexts and shifting geopolitical dynamics. This includes being more aware of state-to-state relations, better prepared for sudden policy shifts, and more agile in their decision-making and operational planning, as uncertainty becomes a defining feature of the humanitarian landscape. In this context, survival increasingly depends on organisations’ ability to remain informed, responsive, and prepared, while navigating shrinking resources and heightened political complexity.
Final Thoughts
Adaptation is no longer optional, but necessary for relevance and survival.
The choices made now about prioritisation, partnerships, and accountability will shape who receives assistance and who is left behind. At stake is not only the effectiveness of humanitarian action, but its credibility in a changing global order.
Your support can make a difference. Please consider donating to help us continue our missions and save lives. Visit www.moas.eu/donate to contribute. For more updates on our work, follow us on social media, sign up for our newsletter, or contact us at [email protected].
Disclaimer: “Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.”