The head of a Harvard University academic and research center on Tuesday (Philippine time) issued a statement on the future of humanitarian aid amid the elimination of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in its current form and the creation of a US State Department entity tentatively referred to as the US Agency for Humanitarian Assistance/Relief (USAHAR).
“The humanitarian sector stands at a critical juncture, confronting deep structural shifts that will redefine its future,” Harvard Humanitarian Initiative (HHI) director Michael VanRooyen said.
“Central to these changes is the transformation of the US approach to aid, the contraction of foreign development funding from most major donors, the threats to UN (United Nations) agencies and local NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) and the expanding influence of private sector actors and organizations linked to state interests,” he added.
According to the HHI official, the new model could include the integration of diplomacy and humanitarian aid, a shift from development to crisis-focused aid, the politicization and conditionality of aid, reduced multilateral engagement, potential fragmentation and operational challenges, fragmentation and the erosion of multilateralism, the rise of new actors and approaches, and implications for local and smaller organizations.
“The new agency would directly align humanitarian assistance with US 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 US national security interests,” VanRooyen said.
This means USAHAR would likely prioritize short-term and crisis-specific interventions like food, health, shelter, and emergency relief—over long-term development investments like education, governance, and economic strengthening.
It would also deprioritize and underfund health systems, education, and governance programming in protracted crises in areas like the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), as well as parts of Africa.
“Funding decisions would likely be more directly influenced by political alignment, geostrategic interests, and security cooperation… Humanitarian principles such as neutrality, impartiality, and independence will be sidelined and overshadowed by these diplomatic considerations,” VanRooyen said, giving as an example refugee containment and counterterrorism support.
“This is already evident in (MENA), where US 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,” he added.
The HHI director concluded that the humanitarian future will ultimately be defined by fragmentation and realignment, with funding flows becoming more politically contingent, operational spaces more contested, and accountability to affected communities ever more critical. Meanwhile, the humanitarian ecosystem is said to likely become less centralized and more transactional, driven by a mix of public diplomacy, private enterprise, and regional politics.