Special Feature: Future humanitarian aid, politicized?

CEBU CITY – The future of humanitarian aid stands at a critical crossroads as it navigates in a politicized and fragmented landscape with the transformation of the U.S. approach to aid, the contraction of foreign development funding from most major donors, the threats to UN agencies and local NGOs and the expanding influence of private sector actors and organizations linked to state interests. 

Michael VanRooyen, Director, The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI) bared that one of the most significant changes on the horizon is the elimination of USAID in its current form and the creation of a new entity within the State Department— tentatively referred to as the U.S. Agency for Humanitarian Assistance/Relief (USAHAR).

The new agency would directly align humanitarian assistance with U.S. foreign policy priorities, rather than operating with a degree of independence under USAID.  Humanitarian decisions would be more tightly controlled by the State Department, emphasizing strategic partnerships, political reliability, and alignment with U.S. national security interests, he noted.

There is a shift from development to crisis-focused aid, most likely prioritizing short-term, crisis-specific interventions such as food, health, shelter, emergency relief, over long-term development investments like education, governance, economic strengthening.

VanRooyen added that funding decisions would likely be more directly influenced by political alignment, geostrategic interests, and security cooperation e.g., refugee containment and counterterrorism support.  

“Humanitarian principles such as neutrality, impartiality and independence will be sidelined and overshadowed by these diplomatic considerations.  We see this in the most recent developments

of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and organizations like Fogbow, who have operated outside of the humanitarian architecture and whose efforts are highly politicized,” he stated.

VanRooyen said, they had already seen the aggressive divestment of the US from WHO and many UN agencies and instead, direct bilateral agreements and funding to favored international or regional partners like Ukraine or key Middle Eastern allies took precedence.

These create potential fragmentation and operational challenges, he added that a more State Department–driven approach risks bypassing traditional neutral humanitarian coordinating bodies, creating parallel response systems and fragmented aid flows.

“U.S.-aligned organizations might see increased funding, while those organizations deemed as adversarial could be marginalized or cut off entirely,” VanRooyen noted.

This is already evident in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), where U.S. humanitarian funding is increasingly linked to broader foreign policy goals.  Economic sanctions and embargoes further hamper aid flows, delaying critical support and eroding the impartiality of humanitarian responses.

Similarly, in Eastern Europe, particularly in Ukraine, humanitarian aid is poised to become more militarized and securitized. This blending of humanitarian and geopolitical agendas risks narrowing the space for neutral actors and fragmenting coordination mechanisms as the U.S. bypasses traditional UN-led structures.