When Professor Salim Abdool Karim, one of South Africa’s leading infectious disease experts, visited the epicentre of the Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) earlier this month, he was struck by one critical absence: USAID.

Karim said the disappearance of the US aid agency from frontline outbreak operations was visible in the shortages facing response teams – from too few ambulances and inadequate protective equipment to delays in constructing isolation facilities. For him, the gaps illustrated how the loss of a major emergency responder is already weakening global preparedness for outbreaks.

His observations offer a stark glimpse into a broader global shift now reshaping humanitarian assistance.

Global humanitarian funding has fallen to its lowest level in a decade, forcing aid agencies to scale back operations, narrow assistance to only the most severe cases, and leave millions of vulnerable people without support, according to the 2026 Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) report, published by Development Initiatives, a leading independent organisation tracking global aid flows.

The report paints a stark picture of a humanitarian system under growing strain. International humanitarian assistance contracted by nearly 30% over the past two years, falling from US$47.4 billion in 2023 to US$33.3 billion in 2025, marking the steepest sustained decline on record. The sharpest drop came in 2025 alone, when funding fell by 20%, equivalent to a loss of US$8.1 billion in a single year.

The United States and Germany accounted for the bulk of that contraction. The US reduced its humanitarian contributions by 55%, from US$13.5 billion to US$6.1 billion, while Germany cut funding by 36%. Together, the two countries accounted for 88% of the total fall in humanitarian funding in 2025.

The funding shock has also accelerated a broader reshaping of the donor landscape. The differing trajectories of the world’s top 20 humanitarian donors in 2025 produced a bigger shift in funding patterns than at any point in the past decade, weakening the dominance of the traditional top four donors as their collective share declined. Seven of the top 20 donors cut funding by more than 10%, including Japan (-29%), Türkiye (-18%), Saudi Arabia (-14%), France (-11%) and South Korea (-11%), alongside the steep cuts from the US and Germany.

At the same time, newer and non-traditional donors have become increasingly influential. Gulf states in particular expanded their footprint, with Qatar increasing contributions by 189% and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) by 54%, while Canada raised funding by 38%. Italy, Switzerland and Ireland also posted notable increases. Although South Korea reduced funding, its continued presence among major donors reflects the growing strategic role of Asian economies in humanitarian financing. The report suggests this more diverse donor ecosystem could partially offset declining Western aid, but also risks fragmentation as different donor blocs bring competing political priorities and funding models.

Yet despite sharply reducing its overall humanitarian spending, the US has simultaneously emerged as the dominant force in UN-managed pooled funding, fundamentally reshaping how aid is distributed.

Following the shutdown of USAID and a broader restructuring of US humanitarian assistance, the US Department of State committed nearly US$3.8 billion to UN-managed pooled funds for 2026 – up from zero in 2025. This gives Washington the largest share of pooled humanitarian financing and unprecedented influence over resource allocation.

The report warns that this marks a dramatic shift in how the US channels aid. Instead of funding a broad mix of UN agencies, international non-governmental organisations and implementing partners directly, Washington is increasingly routing assistance through pooled mechanisms managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), effectively concentrating decision-making power within the UN system.

In some countries, US contributions now account for the entirety of pooled funding available. This has elevated OCHA’s role from system coordinator to a powerful gatekeeper of humanitarian resources, with growing implications for who receives aid, how quickly it is delivered, and which sectors are prioritised.

The report says this shift is also creating a two-tier funding system. US-backed pooled projects tend to favour large UN agencies, shorter implementation periods and material assistance such as food security interventions. By contrast, pooled funding from other donors has traditionally supported longer-term grants, protection services, health programmes and stronger partnerships with local organisations.

The consequences for localisation are already becoming apparent. Early 2026 data shows that only 7% of pooled funds have been allocated to national NGOs, down sharply from nearly 46% in 2025, raising concerns that local actors may be sidelined as funding becomes more centralised.

Beyond funding structures, the broader humanitarian picture remains bleak. Funding declined in 18 of the world’s 20 largest humanitarian crises in 2025, with only Palestine and Myanmar recording increases. Several long-running crises suffered especially deep cuts, including those in Lebanon, Jordan, Somalia, Yemen and the DRC. UN-coordinated appeals met just 35% of requirements in 2025 – the largest funding gap on record.

As resources shrink, humanitarian agencies are increasingly being forced to ration assistance. An estimated 152 million people have been deprioritised from assistance plans in 2026 under “hyper-prioritisation” frameworks designed to stretch dwindling resources, effectively removing millions from formal humanitarian response plans.

The report concludes that the humanitarian sector faces not merely a funding crisis, but a structural one. With aid increasingly concentrated among fewer decision-makers and funding channels becoming more centralised, calls are growing for a radical rethink of how humanitarian assistance is financed and governed.

For millions affected by conflict, displacement and climate shocks, the stakes could hardly be higher. The question is no longer only whether enough money exists, but who controls it, where it flows, and whose priorities ultimately shape the global humanitarian response.