The global humanitarian system — currently regrouping and reimagining itself in the face of sudden, massive funding cuts — cannot maintain the status quo.
During this period of reflection and reform, it is crucial for stakeholders to understand the connection between protection risks and humanitarian needs. A system better able to reduce instances of violence, coercion, and deliberate deprivation against civilians will more efficiently reduce protection risks and address humanitarian needs in tandem.
Following the Trump administration’s executive order on January 20 targeting foreign aid, USAID has been effectively dismantled and an estimated 86% of the agency’s programs have been cut (although these figures continue to fluctuate). The administration’s policies reflect a broader trend of global reductions in humanitarian funding. In 2024, aid flows fell for the first time in five years. The UK announced that they will slash humanitarian funding from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% in 2026, and European donors are discussing further aid cuts in coming years.
The Humanitarian Reset
In response to this “crisis of legitimacy, morale, and funding,” the U.N.’s Emergency Relief Coordinator (ERC), Tom Fletcher, published a letter to the humanitarian community on March 11 announcing an Inter-Agency Standing Committee-led reform process of the humanitarian system and its architecture. The “reset” process proposed a focus on 10 actions led by various stakeholders. These include the prioritization of “urgent life-saving actions” within countries and across country contexts, simplification and streamlining of clusters, structural reform, reduction of inefficiencies, revision of the Humanitarian Program Cycle, and reform of the IASC — the body that steers the international humanitarian system. Final decisions on the “reset” are expected to be taken by the ERC in June.
Together, these workstreams aim to reimagine humanitarian work to build a lighter, more decentralized system that more efficiently saves lives and serves those most in need. This can be achieved by reorienting the system to prioritize and integrate the reduction of protection risks.
Prioritizing Protection Risks
While often unacknowledged, most humanitarian crises are — first and foremost — protection crises. The prevalence of protection risks — namely violence, coercion, and deliberate deprivation — often drive humanitarian needs. Conversely, failure to provide for basic needs can increase the vulnerability of civilians to protection risks.
Given the considerable reduction in available funds, in addition to substantially growing needs, the international community must ensure that interventions are targeted in such a way that scarce assistance has a dual impact — reducing the risks of violence, coercion, and deliberate deprivation (as understood by affected people) while also reducing and addressing humanitarian needs.
The identification of protection risks at the outset of humanitarian needs analyses allows the system to effectively leverage risk analysis as a predictor of humanitarian need and to identify where targeted humanitarian aid, together with advocacy, can best contribute to reduced needs and better protection outcomes.
In this new world of limited funding and questioned legitimacy, humanitarian actors across all sectors must work toward the collective reduction of protection risks in order to more efficiently address humanitarian needs.