The turmoil surrounding the suspension of USAID payments and the proposed reduction of its workforce to 300 employees has rocked the humanitarian community to the core. The U.S. is by far the largest provider of aid, followed by the European Commission and Germany.
The suspension and the accompanying falsehoods offered as justification by President Trump and Elon Musk have predictably raised alarms for many people and organizations affected by the decision to feed USAID “into the wood chipper.”
Such distrust of humanitarian aid is not new. Many Americans assume that humanitarian assistance given by the U.S. is much larger (31% of the federal budget) than it really is (1%).
The current crisis of humanitarianism, exacerbated by the US aid freeze, stems from its complex history and the collapse of the multilateral system. Tinkering with the current humanitarian architecture, which has failed to address systemic issues, will not provide solutions.
Humanitarianism’s problems stem from institutional flaws, not just individual actions. Addressing these issues requires a critical examination of the system, acknowledging power imbalances, and moving towards a more equitable approach.
Humanitarianism, driven by donor needs and Western audiences, prioritizes specific narratives over people’s needs. To be effective, it must be a solidarity project, acknowledging the political and structural causes of crises. The aid freeze by the Trump administration has exposed the contradictions of the current humanitarian regime. Solely relying on states for humanitarian funding is fraught with problems. A new regime is needed.
