One year after the United States shuttered USAID and sharply reduced its global aid commitments, the UN-led humanitarian system continues to grapple with the aftershocks. Early diagnoses of the crisis identified power, money, and process as the three pillars requiring reform. Yet while the rhetoric of a “locally led, internationally supported” system remains prominent, the reality of change over the past year has been uneven and incremental. The system is adjusting to doing “less with less,” even as internal structural shifts point toward a more politicised humanitarian landscape.
At the heart of the humanitarian reset lies a larger, unresolved question: what the end-state vision for reform should be?
For decades, commitments to localisation have been more aspirational than operational, and mean different things to different people. A reset demands more than rhetorical support for local actors but requires a strategy that embeds equitable risk sharing, genuine co-creation of humanitarian responses, and sustained investment in local leadership. This transformation must be anchored in three interdependent drivers – proximity, legitimacy and capacity – if it is to move beyond technical fixes toward structural change.
Power imbalances remain a defining feature of the system. Local and national actors continue to operate on the margins of formal decision-making, often consulted only as implementing partners rather than engaged as long-term leaders. This concern was reiterated at the 2026 Humanitarian Networks and Partnership Week in Geneva, where participants highlighted the persistent exclusion of local actors from upstream planning processes.
Those closest to affected populations are the least able to access funding.
Nowhere is this more evident than in UN Humanitarian Country Teams, which remain the primary coordination mechanism at the national level but largely exclude local and national actors from decision-making roles. The longstanding dominance of UN agencies within the cluster system further exemplifies this imbalance. Leadership roles are frequently predetermined – UNHCR for shelter, WFP for food security – leaving little room for local actors to shape priorities or strategies.
Encouragingly, the humanitarian reset has generated momentum toward opening cluster leadership to local and national actors. Parallel discussions are exploring a shift toward multi-sectoral, area-based coordination models, which would allow local organisations to lead in geographic areas where they possess contextual knowledge and established trust. This idea has been part of discussions for years, but there at least appears to be renewed momentum.
Funding constraints are accelerating the need for institutional change, but they are also exposing systemic inequities. The global humanitarian funding pool dropped dramatically from $37 billion in 2024 to $24.5 billion in 2025, intensifying competition for resources. Despite longstanding commitments to localisation, funding mechanisms remain complex and exclusionary. Decades of capacity-building initiatives have failed to define a clear endpoint, leaving local actors in a perpetual state of “not yet ready.” Donor governments continue to favour UN agencies, citing their established compliance systems and accountability frameworks. This moving target undermines trust and perpetuates dependency.
This dynamic reinforces a paradox: those closest to affected populations are the least able to access funding. Innovative models are beginning to emerge to address this gap. Platforms that aggregate funding from diverse stakeholders and streamline due diligence processes offer a pathway to unlock national-level resources while strengthening accountability, such as KitaMATCH in Malaysia. Such approaches demonstrate how financial innovation can enhance both access and legitimacy for local actors.
At the same time, donor priorities are shifting in ways that further complicate the landscape. Several European governments are redirecting overseas aid budgets toward domestic refugee populations. This trend underscores the growing politicisation of humanitarian assistance, where funding decisions are increasingly shaped by domestic considerations rather than being needs-based.
Even modest proposals to merge UN agencies have encountered entrenched bureaucratic resistance. More ambitious reforms – such as consolidating overlapping mandates among major humanitarian organisations – remain politically sensitive and operationally complex. As a result, much of the current reset risks being confined to short-term adjustments rather than transformative change.
Some observers place hope in the next UN Secretary-General to drive deeper institutional reform. Yet expectations should be tempered. Structural changes to global governance, including the composition of the UN Security Council, are unlikely to yield meaningful benefits for much of the world’s population. Instead, the trajectory of change suggests a leaner UN system with a more focused convening role, increasingly centralised funding structures, and a continued tension between localisation and control.
The immediate priority, as emphasised by Tom Fletcher, the UN Relief Chief, is to shift from long-term aspirations to actionable commitments within the next year. Early signs of progress include greater transparency and engagement in humanitarian country teams with national NGO platforms, expanded use of pooled funding, and efforts to reduce intermediaries. These steps, while modest, could signal a broader shift if sustained.
The success of the humanitarian reset will depend on whether proximity, legitimacy and capacity are treated not as abstract commitments but as operational imperatives. Without a clear vision and the political will to redistribute power, the humanitarian reset risks entrenching existing inequities under the guise of reform. The coming year will be decisive in determining whether the humanitarian community can move beyond incremental change toward a genuine transformation of the humanitarian system.
