Global Aid Cuts Push Humanitarian Crises to the Brink, NRC Warns

As the world grapples with mounting displacement and escalating humanitarian need, international aid agencies are sounding the alarm over unprecedented cuts in donor funding. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), one of the world’s leading humanitarian organizations, warns that the slashing of aid budgets by traditional donor nations is threatening to cripple emergency response efforts in the most fragile contexts.

According to Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the NRC, “It is hard to articulate the depth of donors’ abandonment. Compared to this point last year, just two-thirds of the humanitarian funding has been received, which itself was dramatically lower than the previous year. These cuts are costing lives and must be reversed.”

A Shrinking Lifeline

At the end of June 2025, the global humanitarian system had received only $6 billion in funding—down sharply from $9 billion during the same period in 2024. This funding gap comes at a time when global humanitarian agencies are collectively seeking $44 billion to meet the basic needs of people caught in crises across the world. The current shortfall represents a significant risk to emergency operations in dozens of countries and threatens to reverse decades of progress in humanitarian assistance.

The United Nations, recognizing the dire financial picture, announced a ‘hyper-prioritised’ plan in May 2025, designed to focus limited resources on the most vulnerable populations. The plan aims to provide critical aid to 114 million people—only a fraction of the estimated 300 million globally who require humanitarian assistance. This reprioritization effectively sidelines nearly 200 million people, leaving them with limited or no access to life-saving services.

Donor Fatigue and Shifting Priorities

The declining support from major donor countries reflects growing “donor fatigue” as geopolitical interests, domestic spending priorities, and competing crises take center stage. While some countries continue to contribute, others—including historically major donors like the United States—have dramatically pulled back.

Egeland pointedly remarked:

“Given the funding levels so far in 2025, even many of those targeted by the ‘hyper-prioritised’ plan are likely to be left with their needs unmet. Alongside traditional humanitarian donors, we need to see others step up to bridge this gap, including a wider group of donor countries and the private sector.”

Development finance institutions, especially development banks, also bear greater responsibility, according to Egeland. These actors, he argues, must increase their presence in fragile and conflict-affected settings to provide displaced communities with access to infrastructure, services, and long-term development.

Human Cost of Budget Cuts

The effects of these cuts are stark and already visible in conflict- and disaster-stricken countries.

In Mozambique, the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. humanitarian funding has left families without safe drinking water or shelter. “I witnessed first-hand the consequences in Mozambique, where I saw water tanks that can no longer be refilled due to the overnight cancellation of U.S. funding,” Egeland said. “Families are left without a safe supply of drinking water. This is not only devastating lives but also squanders earlier investments made with taxpayers’ money.”

Japan remains Mozambique’s largest humanitarian donor this year, but even its support cannot fully compensate for the absence of U.S. contributions. NRC teams in Mozambique have already been forced to downsize significantly, discontinuing programs like housing support for cyclone-displaced families.

In Afghanistan, the aid situation is equally grim. The U.S., once responsible for 45% of the humanitarian response in the country, has drastically reduced its involvement. This has left aid organizations like NRC unable to meet basic needs, just as Afghan families face renewed displacement, climate-related disasters, and economic hardship.

“Our teams in Afghanistan remain on the ground and committed… but having lost our largest donor in the country, our teams are being compelled to make heartbreaking choices on who and where we can help,” Egeland said. “We are not alone. Many humanitarian organizations are being forced to reduce their support at a time when we are seeing more and more families returning to the country in need of urgent assistance.”

A Global Pattern of Abandonment

These examples are part of a growing global trend: from Yemen to Sudan, from Syria to the Sahel, international humanitarian organizations are scaling back efforts not because the need has decreased, but because funding has evaporated. Vulnerable populations—particularly refugees, internally displaced persons (IDPs), and communities hit by natural disasters—are being left to fend for themselves.

Egeland called out the disparity in global priorities, stating:

“This picture is being repeated time and time again around the world as international solidarity is being forced to cede to other priorities. Wealthy nations should step up funding before more lives are lost. If we can afford to host World Cups and global summits, and if NATO members can afford to increase defence spending to five percent of GDP, we can afford to maintain support to the most vulnerable in their hour of greatest need.”

A Call for Renewed Commitment

The NRC is urging the international community to recommit to humanitarian principles. It is calling on:

• Traditional donor countries to reverse aid cuts and restore baseline funding.

• New and emerging donor countries to increase their humanitarian engagement.

• Private sector partners to actively contribute to humanitarian relief operations.

• Development banks and long-term development actors to scale up their investment in fragile contexts.

Humanitarian needs are not disappearing. If anything, they are intensifying under the weight of protracted conflicts, climate change, displacement, and economic instability. The NRC warns that if the world fails to act now, it will face not only moral consequences but strategic ones, as neglected crises spiral into greater instability.