By Michael VanRooyen, MD, MPH – Director: The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI)
The humanitarian sector stands at a critical juncture, confronting deep structural shifts that will redefine its future. Central to these changes is 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. This landscape demands both caution and creativity as humanitarian sector scrambles to adapt to a world in flux.
What will replace USAID?
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). Here’s what it could look like and how it would differ from the current model:
Integration of Diplomacy and Humanitarian Aid
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.
Shift from Development to Crisis-Focused Aid
The new agency would likely prioritize short-term, crisis-specific interventions (food, health, shelter, emergency relief) over long-term development investments (education, governance, economic strengthening). Health systems, education, and governance programming in protracted crises (e.g., in MENA, parts of Africa) would be deprioritized and underfunded.
Politicization and Conditionality of Aid
Funding decisions would likely be more directly influenced by political alignment, geostrategic interests, and security cooperation (e.g., refugee containment, 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.
Reduced Multilateral Engagement
There would be less reliance on UN-led pooled funding and coordination structures (e.g., OCHA’s CERF, CBPFs). We have already seen the aggressive divestment of the US from WHO and many UN agencies. Instead, direct bilateral agreements and funding to favored international or regional partners (like Ukraine or key Middle Eastern allies) would take precedence.
Potential Fragmentation and Operational Challenges
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.
What does this mean for current humanitarian crises?
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, exacerbating operational risks for implementing agencies and undermining neutral humanitarian corridors. 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.
Fragmentation and the Erosion of Multilateralism
These trends threaten the cohesion of the current humanitarian architecture, particularly for UN agencies like OCHA. Once the backbone of neutral coordination and pooled funding, OCHA now faces marginalization as bilateral and regionally-driven aid channels take precedence. The decline in U.S. contributions to pooled funding mechanisms and the rise of alternative coordination structures challenge the very notion of a shared global humanitarian response.
UN agencies such as UNICEF and WFP may retain relevance in areas aligned with U.S. strategic interests, but their discretionary funding and independence will be constrained. WHO, in particular, risks losing its position of influence, given the growing politicization of global health diplomacy.
The Rise of New Actors and Approaches
In this fluid environment, new actors and paradigms are emerging. Regional blocs like the African Union and ASEAN may fill some of the gaps left by weakened UN leadership, while diaspora and faith-based organizations with strong community ties could become increasingly valuable for politically sensitive operations.
Meanwhile, the private sector’s role is expanding. Companies with expertise in logistics, technology, and digital finance are stepping in to provide targeted, efficiency-driven support. However, despite their operational advantages, private-sector interventions remain largely episodic, brand-driven, and conditional on market potential. They cannot substitute for the scale and impartiality of public or multilateral funding.
Implications for Local and Smaller Organizations
For smaller local organizations, the future is a double-edged sword. Direct funding opportunities and capacity-building investments may offer unprecedented chances for growth and leadership. Yet these organizations must navigate higher compliance thresholds, increased political vetting, and competition from private-sector actors in domains like logistics and digital payments.
To thrive, local organizations must position themselves as politically neutral, operationally nimble, and capable of demonstrating measurable impact. Investment in digital tools, financial management, and alliances with regional or international NGOs will be essential.
Strategic Outlook
Ultimately, the humanitarian future will be defined by fragmentation and realignment. Funding flows will become more politically contingent, operational spaces more contested, and accountability to affected communities ever more critical. The humanitarian ecosystem will likely become less centralized and more transactional, driven by a mix of public diplomacy, private enterprise, and regional politics.
It is important to understand that this is a major realignment that carries significant risk and significant opportunity to reimagine humanitarianism as a more inclusive and locally grounded endeavor, less dominated by legacy structures and more responsive to the needs and voices of crisis-affected populations. The future of aid is ours to rebuild.
For inquiries or interview requests, please contact:
MARK DAZA | Project and Communications Manager
HHI Resilient Communities Program | Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI)
14 Story Street, 2nd Floor | Cambridge, MA 02138
E: mdaza@hsph.harvard.edu