Foreign assistance is under pressure and under attack.
Humanitarian groups typically assert their independence as a core principle. But facing an existential funding crisis, some are justifying their work by employing soft power narratives linking humanitarian aid to the foreign policy objectives of donor governments.
It happened reflexively with the Trump administration’s mounting attacks on US-funded foreign aid. And it’s spreading as other governments cut budgets and rewrite policies – from the United Kingdom’s military-boosting budget tradeoff, to the Netherlands’ “Dutch interests first” mantra.
Some humanitarian organisations have called China “our adversaries”, linked aid with stemming migration, or simply tried to frame their work as complementing foreign policy goals.
Aid organisations are no longer relevant to governments’ foreign policy aims of economic competition and security – which is precisely why the aid sector is now in the crosshairs.
Much is at stake with the funding cuts, especially the well-being and lives of people who rely on aid in conflicts and crises. It may be tempting to adopt soft power language to grasp for relevance amid the turmoil – I write this as someone whose own position was just terminated by the US funding cuts.
But this is a mistake.
It’s a losing argument: Aid organisations are no longer relevant to governments’ foreign policy aims of economic competition and security – which is precisely why the aid sector is now in the crosshairs. And current foreign policy aims run counter to humanitarian principles.
Instead, humanitarians must find a way to explain their work in a way that connects, while protecting their integrity. And they must think beyond the confines of today’s rigid international aid system: Humanitarian principles aren’t aligned with US foreign policy, but they share much in common with grassroots solidarity.
China, migration, and other tropes
Humanitarians undermine their credibility when they assert alignment with US priorities. There is little evidence that this approach even ensures they can deliver aid at scale.
One common defense of US foreign aid is that it provides a counterbalance to China’s expanding economic reach. China’s state-led capitalist system drives private investment in service of foreign policy objectives with more latitude than the US government has enjoyed as a free market economy.
The Trump administration has already made competition with China a cornerstone of its foreign policy. The humanitarian argument for saving USAID as a hedge against China is a losing one – not least for its awkward messenger. Humanitarian NGOs should not be making arguments in favour of great power competition.
One of the most troubling arguments aid agencies are adopting is that migration is a threat to national security and that foreign assistance should be funded to prevent it. Migration is not inherently a security threat, and research is inconclusive on the relationship between development and migration. Recent research and US government analysis suggests that development may enable increased emigration in the medium term (and cause emigration rates to fall in the longer term).
Framing migration as a threat vilifies migrants in the public discourse irrespective of the messenger. It ignores migrants’ real protection needs and provides fodder to justify restrictions and increase border patrols that receive bipartisan support. It risks dehumanising families navigating extreme difficulty by shifting the perspective from their experience to that of a broad phenomenon – a force to be controlled.
This takes up airtime that could promote understanding and offer the public an alternative narrative of the benefits of migration – for migrants, host communities, and sending countries.
From soft power to solidarity
The United States has – to some extent at least – long tried to use aid funding to serve its broader strategic interests.
Some international humanitarian NGOs originated and flourished during the Cold War, when Western aid aligned with stated US foreign policy objectives to advance democratisation and development in areas under Soviet influence.
Any overlap between humanitarianism’s objectives and US foreign policy has become more tenuous over time.
In recent years, the US government has adopted increasingly right-wing stances on migration, fallen short on its explicit commitment to evacuate and resettle Afghan allies, and refused to pressure the Israeli government to end the genocide in Gaza, while maintaining weapons sales. The Trump administration has threatened to go far beyond just supporting the Israeli campaign in Gaza.
Humanitarians recognise the potential dissonance between their main funders and their work: The core principle of independence has evolved to include independence from governments.
Aid groups that depend on US government funding don’t get to decide whether they are operating in the interest of US foreign policy or not. The dog wags the tail, and its owners have other priorities.
But decades of advocacy has failed to rebalance power and accountability from donors to aid recipients. The Grand Bargain reform pledges and related efforts have pushed for more pooled and localised funding, intending, in part, to reduce direct donor control over aid and limit attribution and branding – a hallmark of soft power.
Neoliberal economic reforms over a longer period have concentrated power among a small group whose individual priorities have undue influence – as the rise of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency illustrates. Special interests now dominate US foreign policy, with detrimental consequences.
Aid groups that depend on US government funding don’t get to decide whether they are operating in the interest of US foreign policy or not. The dog wags the tail, and its owners have other priorities.
Humanitarians must not fall into the trap of making short-term concessions and adopting the framing of those that oppose their work on principle. They must confront this reality and explain their work in a way that connects with people while protecting their integrity and credibility – which are essential to save lives.
Cheapening of the truth is characteristic of authoritarian turns, and one of the most important aspects of countering disinformation is to avoid repeating the lie. The demolition of the status quo does not make humanitarian needs less urgent, and it doesn’t close off the possibility of saving lives.
Humanitarians have firsthand knowledge of how decisions made in donor capitals shape human survival across the planet. The next step is twofold: Fight for a just and accountable foreign policy, and find new ways to reach people in need. Diaspora groups, mutual aid networks, and other grassroots solidarity efforts could benefit from the technical expertise and global connectivity of less formalised humanitarian actors. Humanitarians can learn from communities focused on activism and human rights to address structural barriers in new ways, with new tools.
Stepping outside the constraints of humanitarianism can be clarifying. Your principles and your power are your own; they don’t belong to a concept or a sector.
