More than 305 million people require lifesaving humanitarian aid today. Most of them live in areas wracked by conflict, such as Sudan, Gaza, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
By many estimates, there is more need than ever for this assistance – and the need is growing. But humanitarian funding, which is primarily provided by governments, is declining. The Trump administration stopped disbursing nearly all U.S. humanitarian aid on Jan. 20, 2025. It made these cuts at a time when the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Belgium and other wealthy countries are slashing their own aid spending.
Judges have ruled that the U.S. government must rehire aid workers and make overdue payments for aid already delivered by nongovernmental organizations, international agencies and private contractors. While legal disputes wend through the courts, these cuts are already having disastrous consequences for people in Afghanistan, Sudan and other places facing crises.
As scholars who study humanitarian aid, we are seeing not just a crisis of funding but also one that jeopardizes the credibility of the entire global system that provides this lifesaving assistance.
When conflict breaks out or a disaster like an earthquake strikes, people require emergency medical care, temporary shelter, food and water. In countries where the government is unable or unwilling to provide these services, humanitarian organizations and international agencies step in to fill the gaps. Humanitarian aid is based on empathy and the recognition that everyone has a right to live with dignity.
When discussing the impacts of its aid freeze and challenging the Trump administration’s misinformation about the U.S. Agency for International Development, many NGOs and experts on humanitarian assistance have not focused on empathy and rights.
They have in their defense of the agency responsible until now for most of the foreign aid the U.S. provides instead relied on arguments that appeal to U.S. national security, soft power and economic interests.
Sen. Chris Coons, a Connecticut Democrat, has warned that China will benefit from the U.S. aid cutoff.
“Our biggest global competitor and adversary is delighted that we’ve handed them an opportunity to say to communities and countries around the world that we are not a reliable partner,” Coons said.
By highlighting geopolitical, security and economic arguments for humanitarian aid, in our view, they risk further hurting the sector’s legitimacy.
Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images
A ‘seismic shock’
Tom Fletcher, who leads the United Nations’ humanitarian efforts, has called the Trump administration’s aid reduction “a seismic shock to the sector.” But the latest cuts are part of a longer-term trend.
While needs have increased, humanitarian funding has been flat or declining for years, leaving millions of people who need food, health care, shelter and protection without the assistance they need.
Every year, the U.N. assesses humanitarian need for the coming year and issues what amounts to a global budget request to meet those needs. Government donors commit funds toward that budget request, and those funds are then distributed to U.N. agencies and NGOs that implement humanitarian programming.
Since 2016, the gap between funding requirements and funding commitments has grown. In 2024, the U.N. requested US$49.5 billion in humanitarian funding and received less than half, or $23.9 billion, with the U.S. contributing 41% of that amount.
Until January 2025, the U.S. accounted for 35%-46% of total annual global humanitarian funding. The abrupt cutoff of funds has led to a scramble to pay for food for malnourished children in Sudan, health care for refugees from Myanmar, and maternal health services in Yemen.
Without U.S. funding, the humanitarian work of the United Nations agencies and NGOs that deliver humanitarian aid in part funded by governments is in jeopardy.
Because of the cuts, Catholic Relief Services and the International Rescue Committee, for example, have laid off staff and shuttered health clinics that prevent or treat infectious diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS. They can no longer provide access to clean water and sanitation services or other lifesaving aid in many places where they work.
Core principles violated
Humanitarian groups have historically embraced a set of core principles that emphasize the alleviation of human suffering wherever it may occur while remaining independent, neutral and impartial.
In conflict zones, these principles are essential for gaining access to people who need help. Aid workers build trust and acceptance by not picking sides in a conflict and providing aid based on need.
Focusing on what benefits donor countries instead of what serves humanitarian needs in areas experiencing famine, disasters or conflicts is at odds with these principles. However, in January, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that U.S. interests would decide how aid is allocated.
“Every dollar we spend, every program we fund and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions,” Rubio said. “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”
Since late January, the Trump administration has cut 83% of USAID’s programs, according to recent reports.
Transactional arguments
In March, the State Department sent a questionnaire to nongovernmental organizations and U.N. agencies asking how they will conform to President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy and distribute aid in alignment with foreign policy goals.
Governments always consider their own interests as one factor when making decisions about humanitarian aid. But, we are concerned that humanitarian organizations and the public are not pushing back on these purely transactional arguments.
Instead, some organizations seem to be falling in line.
“This investment pays dividends by preventing humanitarian crises, containing disease outbreaks, and countering adversarial influence in vulnerable regions,” stated InterAction, an association of U.S.-based NGOs that distribute humanitarian aid and development assistance. “That’s why foreign aid has maintained decades of support across party lines — it is vital for U.S. security and international stability.”
We also see in these comments signs that justifications for aid are changing.
When former Secretary of State Colin Powell called nongovernmental organizations a “force multiplier” in 2001, it stirred controversy because he suggested that they were an extension of the government and a pillar of U.S. strategy. Even still, he acknowledged that NGOs required independence from government to do their essential work.
An important choice
Humanitarian organizations are grappling with the financial and operational consequences of their reliance on a small number of donor governments that have cut off or cut back aid. As they adjust to the new reality, we believe that they must make a choice.
They can embrace the increasingly transactional agendas of the rich countries that have historically provided most humanitarian aid funding. Doing so may increase aid flows but compromise humanitarian neutrality and impartiality – potentially restricting their access to the places they need to go to do their work.
Or they can focus on people affected by crises – as recipients of assistance and as agents of change. This option would likely mean operating on an even smaller budget at a time when needs are increasing.
Either way, the decisions made today will have significant implications for the future of humanitarian action.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
