As 2026 begins, the global humanitarian system is facing a crisis of trust, legitimacy, and resources. Humanitarian agencies are being asked to do more with far less, while major donors show limited appetite for reform and sometimes exacerbate the crises they are meant to address. The sector is caught between appealing to public solidarity and responding to the governments who fund it, creating tension and uncertainty about its future direction.
Funding shortages are a defining challenge. The humanitarian system continues to feel the effects of 2025’s steep cuts, with multilateral agencies facing budget shortfalls of up to 60 percent. Local and women-led organizations are particularly vulnerable, often facing closure or extreme financial stress. As resources shrink, international organizations risk competing with local partners for funds, undermining commitments to localize aid and prioritize communities in crisis. This “humanitarian reset” being pursued by the UN mixes efficiency measures with structural downsizing, but the reductions often occur in silos and are uncoordinated, leaving communities with less assistance and agencies scrambling to adapt.
In response to the funding crisis, humanitarian actors are increasingly turning to private sector partnerships and emerging donors. Gulf states such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are already major contributors, while China’s growing global influence presents new dynamics. Collaborations with tech and corporate partners promise efficiency and innovation, but raise ethical concerns, especially when companies have ties to surveillance, militarization, or human rights abuses. Misaligned goals between humanitarian organizations and corporate partners threaten the sector’s credibility, highlighting the need for clear standards and governance frameworks.
Aid workers face evolving risks as well. Drone attacks, surveillance, cyber threats, and increasing detention of humanitarian staff are transforming the operational landscape. In some regions, over 70 percent of attacks on NGOs involve drones, while states use detention and intimidation to exert pressure. The rise of weaponized narratives and social media influence further complicates humanitarian work, reshaping perceptions, access, and funding. Despite efforts to improve risk management and protections, local staff often bear the brunt of insecurity, highlighting inequities in the sector.
Climate change is emerging as a focus for legal and institutional action, offering potential avenues for justice and adaptation. The Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) is a step forward, providing targeted financial support for communities affected by climate-related disasters. Legal precedents, such as rulings by the International Court of Justice, also reinforce obligations for governments to respond to climate impacts. Pioneering national initiatives, like the carbon levies and fossil fuel phase-out plans championed by small coalitions, demonstrate that transformative climate action can begin outside traditional UN frameworks.
Pooled funding mechanisms are increasingly central to the UN’s humanitarian reset, offering flexibility, faster deployment, and potential support for local actors. Yet centralization also risks concentrating power within UN agencies and excluding grassroots organizations from decision-making. Locally governed funds, including those managed by civil society networks and refugee-led groups, show more promise in ensuring resources reach frontline responders and maintain accountability to affected communities.
Finally, humanitarian agencies face challenges in transitioning out of crises. Lessons from the abrupt US aid cuts in 2025 highlight the dangers of unplanned exits, which left local partners and communities vulnerable. Effective localization requires careful planning, clear handovers, and integration with existing social protection systems. Without robust exit strategies, transitions risk creating gaps in service provision, overburdening local leaders, and undermining the very goals of humanitarian aid.
The 2026 humanitarian landscape is one of financial pressure, shifting alliances, technological risks, and emerging justice frameworks. For agencies, the imperative is clear: adapt, plan responsibly, and prioritize local leadership while navigating shrinking budgets, ethical dilemmas, and escalating crises.
