GNV focused in particular on the severe underfunding of the UN in the year 2025, which is the year 2025's "Top 10 undercovered world news storiesThis issue was selected as the third best issue in the

In this issue, the news media, The New Humanitarian (The New HumanitarianThe first is an article by Irwin Roy and Will Worley, published on December 8, 2025, entitledFive key points to read from the UN's 2026 Assistance PlanThe second is the December 11, 2025 edition of Mike Pearson and Kelly Holloway's "A sharp turn: "World Humanitarian Review" fosters a dangerous trend.In the "In.

Discussions on improving humanitarian aid delivery, Somalia (Photo:AMISOM Public Information / Flickr [CC0 1.0]

Five key points to read from the UN's 2026 Assistance Plan

The New Humanitarian, Inc.The New HumanitarianTranslated article by Irwin Roy (Irwin Loy) and Mr. Will Worley (Will WorleyWritten by (*1)

Humanitarian Aid in 2026 Faces Funding Shortfalls and Attacks, Tweaks Strategy to Combat Donation Cuts

The UN-led humanitarian aid request for 2026, released in December 2025, comes with a stark warning as the crisis worsens. At the same time, it also contains a more calculated message. While it puts pressure on governments to cut funding in a way that appeals directly to their constituents, it also offers some hope for the serious cuts made by the Trump administration in the United States.

At a press conference announcing the humanitarian aid request, UN Humanitarian Affairs Coordinator Tom Fletcher stated. While some people think about building self-driving cars and living a utopian life on Mars, for the majority the reality is a driverless world and an increasingly dystopian life on our own planet."

The overview is grim. The UN-led humanitarian aid request is based on an "extremely focused" plan that aims to reach 87 million people and seeks US$23 billion.

This is the smallest number of people that the UN-coordinated humanitarian response has attempted to reach in the past decade, and it does so at a time when humanitarian needs are growing due to conflict, climate change, and increasing disregard for international norms. There are also still tens of millions of people who are not targeted for assistance (the plan estimates that approximately 239 million people are in need of emergency assistance).

Refugee camp, Ethiopia (Photo:Ethiopian Human Rights Commission / Flickr [CC BY-NC-SA 2.0]

Fletcher characterized this approach as pragmatic and presented the Global Humanitarian Overview (GHO), a compilation of 29 individual response plans and budgets from Sudan to Gaza.

He said, "Just writing a large amount of money doesn't mean you're going to get more funding. We are trying to be realistic about how far we can go with our current funding situation. We want to grow bigger, but we have to start somewhere with a sense of reality," Fletcher said.

The "extremely focused" version of the 2026 Humanitarian Assistance Request requests US$23 billion in funding, the lowest amount since 2017. The overall plan calls for US$33 billion and will target 135 million people for assistance.

For the past two years, UN-led humanitarian assistance requests have been stratified by priority based on what each response wants to accomplish and what is realistically possible.

This follows years of donor funding cuts and a sharp decline in support due to the US dismantling of its aid department and budget under the Trump administration in 2025.

The traditional international humanitarian sector, a model portrayed as charity and dependent on voluntary funding, is facing a crisis of survival, mainly due to the inward-looking nature of many Western donor governments. The system itself has also been targeted, with large aid agencies and the UN in particular under attack for wasteful spending.

In presenting this response plan, Fletcher is attempting to appeal to his constituents while reconstructing this narrative about aid.

We know that budgets are tight right now. Families around the world are carrying the burden."

But the world spent US$2.7 trillion on defense in 2024. But the world spent US$2.7 trillion on defense in 2024, on guns and weapons. And I am asking for just a little more than 1% of that."

Following are some initial takeaways from the 2026 Response Plan.

Regardless of Goals, Funding Gap Widens

The trend is clear. Humanitarian agencies are reducing the amount they request even as their needs increase, and regardless of the amount they ask for, the actual funding they receive is decreasing.

Over the years, the humanitarian system has primarily requested the amount it needs. Particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, humanitarian aid requests increased sharply, supported by donor goodwill. However, behind the numbersFalling off a cliff of fundswas hidden. This is especially the case for the part that was covered up by U.S. funds and European support for Ukraine.

Some of them are.Donor pressureDue to the largest-ever humanitarian aid request in 2023 and the largest funding shortfall in history, humanitarian officials have begun to scale back their requests.

In 2023, total GHO requests exceeded US$56 billion, but have steadily declined since then. As a result, the funding gap is widening. This is because several donor governments, as well as the United States, have drastically reduced their humanitarian budgets. According to UN statistics, funding for the 2025 request is only US$12 billion, about a quarter of the request and only 40% of the benchmark "urgent priority" tier.

Some are prioritized, some are not.

The pressure is not uniform. The numbers reveal that some responses are top priority for the budget and the people they support, while others are not.

For example, more than 801 TP3T of funding requests are included in the "Extremely Focused" tier for responses to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Ukraine, Nigeria, Colombia, and Central African Republic. Haiti, Mozambique (Reduction process disrupted in early 2025.(See Section 2.1.2.),South SudanThe plans for Syria and Yemen also appear to treat more than 801 TP3T of so-called "people in need of assistance" as priority targets.

On the other hand, less than half of the prioritized funding has been allocated to the Afghanistan, Somalia, and Venezuela responses. Burkina Faso, Cameroon (Aid cuts in the country, combined with the difficult political situation, have had a negative impact.), Chad, Mari,Myanmarand the Horn of Africa, the world's largest forced migration crisis.SudanEven in the regional response to the "Mere Old Man," less than half of those in need of assistance are prioritized for assistance.

The numbers on the surface alone do not reveal the selection and detailed priority adjustments that are being made. For example,EducationHow serious is the reduction to orgender-based violenceThis includes such things as the extent to which victim assistance services are being cut back in the We also do not see issues such as who would be omitted from assistance if decision makers in the humanitarian response stated that they should focus on responding to the recent crisis.

The term "those in need of assistance" does not count all those in need.

Who needs assistance? Who does not? Discernment is increasinglyIt's getting harder.The following is a list of the most common problems with the

Year-to-year comparisons of "people in need of assistance" are not very meaningful. Calculate global figures.methodologyandunusualThis is because, in addition to this, hard pressure from donors and financial realities are forcing humanitarian officials to simply reduce their requests.

The 2026 request put the number of people in need of assistance at 239 million; in 2024, it was 300 million, also a decrease from previous years.

Meanwhile, the number of "people in need of assistance" omitted from coverage under each year's response plan has steadily increased. This gap has exceeded 100 million people each year since 2023; by 2026, for the first time, less than 60% of "those in need" are expected to be covered (only 36% in the extremely focused tier).

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which coordinates humanitarian assistance requests, part of the reason for the decline in the "people in need" figure is that by 2026 the number of plans and requests themselves will declinesaidThis includes countries that have "transitioned" from humanitarian response and the "termination" of some regional responses conducted by the UNHCR.

The document states that "the people with the most urgent and crisis-driven needs captured in GHO 2026 are just the tip of the iceberg of global suffering.

Humanitarian workers in the country response are concerned that the changes are even more serious. The change is even more serious because it means that the way "need" is measured is failing to count many people.

Another attempt to change the narrative

The annual humanitarian aid request is often the place to bow down to donors and ask for funds; in 2025, there is a deliberate attempt to change the image of aid, and the message is being directed to voters as well.

'We're only asking for a little over 1% of what the world is currently spending on military and defense. So we're not asking people to choose between a hospital in Brooklyn and a hospital in Kandahar," Fletcher said. 'We're asking the world to spend less on defense and more on humanitarian aid.

This strategy includes the aim of leveraging voters in the event that politicians do not act. In the polls,AmericaincludingMultiple CountriesThe fact that voters support foreign aid inIndicated.The following is a list of the most common problems with the

Fletcher said that in the coming weeks he plans to present the humanitarian aid request to governments and other donors, and then publicly indicate which governments have provided funding.

'Did your government or did it not comply with this plan? The answer to this question will determine who lives and who dies."

This is a slightly different emphasis for humanitarian leaders, but not at allIt's nothing new.The following is a list of the most common problems with the

Aid organizations also often highlight huge unmet humanitarian needs and link them to a lack of funding. For RefugeesReduction of food rationingand other operational decisions are effectively the responsibility of the donor government.analysisAccording to the "Mere Old Man," the government's counterparts in the humanitarian community are unlikely to react to this strategy because they are caught between the political priorities of their leaders and the wishes of their constituents.

Fletcher's appeal for Trump

Some of the attempts to change the narrative include Donald Trump's prominentpeace mediatorThere seems to be an intent to appeal to appeal.

Trump, who has publicly called for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to him (on Dec. 5, FIFA called it questionable).A new award was given) in recent weeks,Gaza Stripfrom (e.g. time, place, numerical quantity)Thailand and CambodiaRwanda.Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire)They have boasted about the so-called peace agreement until

Fletcher seeks to position the international humanitarian response as a complement to that.

Fletcher said, "We want to tie this plan to the possibility that 2026 will be a year of peacebuilding." 'I think we have heard that clear message from the U.S. president. I see a willingness from many key actors in the Middle East and Africa to be involved in ending as many conflicts as possible. That gives me greater hope."

Presentation of the World Humanitarian Overview 2025 (Photo:United States Mission Geneva / Flickr [CC BY-ND 2.0]

A radical shift: "World Humanitarian Review" fosters dangerous trends

The New Humanitarian, Inc.The New HumanitarianTranslated article by Mike Pearson (Mike Pearsonand Kelly Holloway (Kerrie HollowayWritten by (*2)

It is not "extremely focused" crises that should ring alarm bells, but crises that are at risk of a poor exit.

The word that will undoubtedly symbolize the humanitarian sector in 2025 will be "prioritization."

The painful process of picking and choosing what and whom to prioritize in a multi-agency humanitarian budget,2024 EditionIt began with the Global Humanitarian Overview (GHO) of 2025, when significant donor aid cuts occurred and prioritization moved to a new extreme phase, the "extremely focused" form. In addition,December 8The 2026 response plan, published in the "2026" section of this report, pushes this trend to its limits.

Extreme emphasis."Edition 2026GHO has set the target for assistance at 87 million people and the amount needed at US$23 billion. Despite growing humanitarian needs, this is the lowest level in the past decade.

A look behind the numbers shows that the international humanitarian system is now breaking up the crisis into distinct categories. However, this pecking order is not based on the situation on the ground, but on the basis of funding cuts.

Prioritizing certain crises and needs means relegating others to the margins, and the most significant trend in the 2026 GHO is the clear disengagement (transition) from the international humanitarian assistance system indicated in many situations. Up to 11 countries/regions have been placed on a transition path, and longer-term transitions may occur in other regions.

So what happens to the people and crises that are not prioritized? The history of very recent humanitarian response shows that pushing a response into a "non-priority" frame without considering what happens next can have serious consequences.Iraqis one example. Decision makers must plan these transitions more carefully. Otherwise, the crisis risks stagnating and eventually disappearing from public view.

Medical examination on malnutrition, Yemen (Photo:EU Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid / Flickr [CC BY-NC-ND 4.0]

Four categories of humanitarian response

The 2026 GHO divides the humanitarian response into four broad categories based on the amount of assistance requested and the extent of reduction in the number of people to be assisted.

The first is the "Hyper Crisis" category. In this category, the reductions in funding and the number of people to be assisted are relatively limited, with a reduction of less than 401 TP3T between the 2025 GHO and the proposed 2026 "Prioritization". Palestine, Ukraine, Syria, South Sudan, Haiti, and the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh are included here.

These crises have attracted the attention of donors and humanitarian agencies, and the humanitarian instinct to assist the most vulnerable and respond as needed has led to the decision to direct limited resources here first. Historically, funding for these contexts has to some extentmaintenanceThe first time I saw a new company, I was surprised at how much I had to pay.

The second is the "prolonged crisis" category. In this category, the range of reductions is between 40 and 501 TP3T. Responses to the Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, Yemen, and the Syrian refugee crisis fall into this category. While humanitarian needs are high in these regions, they are not given the same priority as the hyper-crisis. It is interesting to note that in total, nearly 80 million people in these regions are in need of assistance, compared to only about 43 million in the hyper-crisis category. However, even if the severity of the needs is comparable, the distribution of funds is more limited. Also, even though the severity of the humanitarian needs remainsseverityThere is also a tendency for response plans to be reduced in areas deemed to have relatively low For exampleSudannotes that "at least 14.2 million people, including those on the verge of reaching extreme severity, have been excluded from the response" in order to prioritize high severity areas.

The third is the "Neglected Crises" category. Afghanistan, Chad, Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, Venezuela, and the Venezuela Regional Mobility Programme fall into this category. While the amount of assistance requested for these responses has been cut by more than half, the international assistance mechanism itself remains in place. While not at the point of immediate departure from the international system, the continued low priority may push these contexts toward transition in the future.

Finally, there is the "crisis in transition": the 2026 GHO removes El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, as well as the regional refugee plans for Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and Ukraine. In addition, Colombia,Cameroonand Nigeria's response could be added to this category. These countries are part of the so-called "Humanitarian resetAs part of the "priorityization" process, there is a planned shift away from the international system. These countries are in extreme cases of "prioritization" and overall humanitarian activities are being phased out.

On the other hand, there are also tensions associated with the decline in priorities. In Colombia, for example, the number of people assisted increased from the previous year despite talk of transition, indicating that this classification is not always an exact science and that changing conditions on the ground remain influential. Mozambique is another peculiar example: although the 2026 response plan showed only a small reduction, Mozambique's 2025 "accelerated transition"candidateThe situation is considered to beContinued considerationThe company plans to

Signal and Noise

International attention turns by default to "hyper-crisis". These are contexts that are likely to attract media and donor attention due to the scale of the need and the geopolitical impact.

This may have been the case long before "prioritization" became an essential part of the humanitarian vocabulary. But the international system now sends a clearer signal that limited resources should be focused here first. This signal penetrates the noise of funding cuts and gives donors a guide for action.

At the same time, however, the sector risks sending a different message. Seven contexts were removed from the GHO, three more were reported as being in transition, one was barely avoided, and in addition eight contexts in the neglected category could move in the same direction over time due to the prioritization The impact could move in the same direction over time.

The reality may be a lack of funding, but that should not imply a lack of interest. Rather, it is the opposite.

Humanitarian actors need to be intentional about how they manage transitions. Responses to hyper-crisis and protracted crises may bring to mind the humanitarian country teams, inter-agency humanitarian requests, and coordination clusters that are in place under the auspices of the international humanitarian system. However, little work has been done on what the transition from an international humanitarian response might look like.

If done properly, the transition will entrench the long-term development process and reduce dependence on international aid. If not done properly, the transition will leave entire populations behind and create people who fall through the cracks. For humanitarian actors, there are examples of recent experience that should be avoided.

Presentation of the World Humanitarian Overview 2025 (Photo:United States Mission Geneva / Flickr [CC BY-ND 2.0]

Stalled Transition in Iraq

Iraq against the upcoming humanitarian transition.A case study that should serve as a wake-up callIn the Humanitarian funding for Iraq will decline from US$1.9 billion in 2016 to just US$500 million in 2022, and the UN has been working to reduce Iraq'sShut down cluster systemThe first time the report was published, it was in the form of a book. The assumption at the time was that the humanitarian situation in the country had improved since the war ended, that global humanitarian funding was already declining, and that many of Iraq's needs should be addressed through development programs rather than humanitarian assistance.

These assumptions were not necessarily wrong. Nevertheless, the humanitarian transition in Iraq has largely stalled. Humanitarian organizations continue to provide assistance to internally displaced persons, development assistance is inadequate, the government has failed to make significant progress, and displaced persons remain in the same or worse conditions than before the transition.

A successful humanitarian transition requires close cooperation and handover between the international system and national and local counterparts. In Iraq, the humanitarian personnelinterview (i.e. television, newspaper, etc.)According to the "Mere Old Man," they did not even know who their government counterparts were until the moment of the transition.

The current crisis in transition is even more acute and is being driven by funding trends rather than declining humanitarian needs. As a result, the handover is unlikely to be smooth, creating a leadership and coordination vacuum that risks duplication of limited resources and gaps in support.

As other countries and responses transition out of the international humanitarian system, the needs may remain and remain unmet without investment from governments, international financial institutions, and development agencies. The UN's prioritization process has not worked because these commitments have not been secured in advance. If they are not secured, future shocks could trigger new humanitarian needs and set communities back into a new humanitarian crisis.

No one believes that a country or crisis should forever be dependent on international aid or the old aid system. However, any transition decided on the basis of funding rather than improving the humanitarian situation is likely to fail.

Therefore, the story behind the numbers in the 2026 World Humanitarian Overview is not just about unmet needs or lack of funding. It also includes what decision makers are overlooking.

It is not only hyper crises that we should be wary of, but also crises that are not hastily planned and transitioned. Prioritization" will not be a buzzword forever. If we proceed without careful planning, the new buzzword may soon be "failed humanitarian transition."

(This article is a translation and The New Humanitarian is not responsible for the accuracy of the translation. The New Humanitarian provides quality independent journalism for millions of people affected by humanitarian crises around the world. For more information.http://www.thenewhumanitarian.org).

1 This article was originally published in The New Humanitarian (The New HumanitarianIrwin Roy of the (Irwin Loy) and Mr. Will Worley (Will WorleyThe article "Five takeaways from the UN's aid plans for 2026The following is a translation of the article "The New Humanitarian," published by The New Humanitarian, Inc. We would like to take this opportunity to thank The New Humanitarian and the authors for providing us with the article.

2 This article was originally published in The New Humanitarian (The New HumanitarianMike Pearson of the (Mike Pearsonand Kelly Holloway (Kerrie HollowayThe article "Abrupt transitions: The Global Humanitarian Overview pushes a dangerous trendThe following is a translation of the article "The New Humanitarian," published by The New Humanitarian, Inc. We would like to take this opportunity to thank The New Humanitarian and the authors for providing us with the article.