GENEVA – In a stark reflection of dwindling support, the U.N.’s humanitarian aid coordination office has announced plans to scale back its funding appeal for 2026. This decision follows a significant drop in contributions this year, predominantly from Western nations, reducing backing to a ten-year low.

On Monday, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) revealed its intention to request $33 billion to assist approximately 135 million individuals grappling with the aftermath of conflicts, natural disasters, epidemics, and food crises. This year’s intake was capped at $15 billion, marking the lowest in a decade.

The OCHA has earmarked over $4.1 billion to aid 3 million people in Palestinian territories, $2.9 billion for Sudan, which is currently facing the world’s largest displacement crisis, and $2.8 billion for a regional initiative centered around Syria.

Reflecting on the past year’s challenges, Tom Fletcher, the head of OCHA, highlighted the dire consequences of inadequate funding. “In 2025, the surge in hunger led to slashed food budgets, even as famines affected areas in Sudan and Gaza. Health systems collapsed, disease outbreaks escalated, and millions lacked essential food, healthcare, and protection. Programs aimed at protecting women and girls were drastically reduced, leading to the closure of hundreds of aid organizations,” he noted.

The original target for this year was $47 billion, aiming to support 190 million people globally. However, due to the shortfall in contributions, the U.N. and its humanitarian partners were able to assist 25 million fewer individuals compared to 2024.

Fletcher acknowledged the current economic strains but emphasized the disparity in spending priorities. “I understand that budgets are tight everywhere, and families are feeling the pressure,” he remarked. “Yet, last year, the world spent $2.7 trillion on defense – on weapons and military equipment. I’m merely asking for just over 1% of that amount.”

He has called for “radical transformation” of aid by reducing bureaucracy, boosting efficiency and giving more power to local groups. Fletcher cited “very practical, constructive conversations” almost daily with the Trump administration.

“Do I want to shame the world into responding? Absolutely,” Fletcher said. “But I also want to channel this sense of determination and anger that we have as humanitarians, that we will carry on delivering with what we get.”