We can't make aid more local if we defund refugee-led groups

Martha Guerrero Ble is an advocate for Refugees International.

The recent cuts in U.S. foreign assistance are sending shockwaves through the global humanitarian system. The damage is being felt acutely by refugee-led organisations (RLOs), frontline groups that are often the most effective and trusted actors in places where large numbers of displaced people have sought shelter and support. 

Now they are being squeezed out of the very systems they help sustain.

For years, RLOs have filled critical gaps in refugee response efforts, running livelihood programmes, supporting survivors of gender-based violence, providing food and shelter, and advocating for the rights of their communities. 

They do this in Colombia, where displaced and local leaders have joined efforts to deliver assistance in marginalised poor neighbourhoods, controlled by gangs - places where humanitarian organisations cannot safely access. 

Or in Kenya, where RLOs advocate for the rights of refugees who are still in camps and are helping to shape national refugee policies. Also in Lebanon, where RLOs give support to Syrian refugees who have been forgotten by the government. 

They do this work with unmatched insight and reach because they are from the very communities they serve. But now their organisations are on life support.

Make-or-break moment

There is still time to change course. 

Donors must ensure aid reaches refugee-led organisations urgently and nimbly, ensuring they have the resources they need, even amidst uncertainty. 

Without this shift, we risk dismantling the very infrastructure sustaining refugee response from within - at a make-or-break moment for global humanitarian architecture.

In a recent conversation with Refugees International, RLO leaders from across the globe shared a dire picture: budgets slashed mid-programme, massive staff lay-offs, essential services suspended. 

Some had already shuttered entire programmes, citing initiatives to prevent child labour and respond to gender-based violence. They explained how they are making tough choices to pivot to “band-aid solutions” focused solely on survival for refugees, leaving long-term vulnerabilities unaddressed.

This isn’t just a funding crisis - it is a fork in the road.

Dangerous moment

At stake is the global “localisation” agenda, the long-standing promise by donors and international agencies to shift power and resources closer to affected communities.

The idea is simple: when local actors lead, humanitarian response is faster, more cost-effective, more inclusive, and more sustainable. But in practice, when budgets are squeezed, these same actors are the first to be cut out.

That’s what makes this moment so dangerous. Even as localisation has gained traction in global policy forums - with pledges like the Grand Bargain calling for at least 25% of funding to go directly to local actors - refugee-led organisations remain sidelined.

Too often, they are subcontractors at best, and invisible at worst. They rarely receive direct funding and when international organisations are forced to trim their budgets, it is RLOs who disappear first.

The implications are deeply concerning. 

RLOs are not just service providers - they are a key ingredient in a sustainable global humanitarian architecture.

They speak the local language. They understand the local context. They operate where larger international NGOs often can’t or won’t. One leader summarised it best: “We have to exist and work, even without the funding.”

But that’s not sustainable.

Donors must reverse course and act on the lessons learned in recent years. They must channel support for mechanisms that already include RLOs, like the NEAR Network’s Change Fund, which delivers grants directly into the hands of local and refugee-led actors.

Where intermediaries are used, donors should favour those that commit to allocating at least 25% of funds to RLOs - in line with the Grand Bargain’s localisation target.

Multilateral organisations like the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) and Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) must also step up.

That means bringing RLOs into critical conversations about how the refugee response is being restructured. It means setting context-specific benchmarks for funding - in particular as part of the restructuring of country-based pooled funds.

And it means reimagining partnership models in a way that allows refugee-led organisations to truly help shape the future of humanitarian response.

Finally, the United States and other donors should reconsider the consequences of blanket aid freezes, particularly in places where local organisations hold the line. After U.S. cuts, European and other donors, in particular, should step up to support the localisation agenda and maintain support for RLOs to operate.

The aid cuts will undoubtedly reshape the humanitarian system, but they don’t have to destroy it. This can still be a moment of transformation toward greater equity, sustainability, and leadership from people who share the experiences of those they are helping. But only if refugee-led organisations are part of the solution.

The localisation agenda cannot survive if refugee-led organisations are cut off from funding, silenced and left on the sidelines. For all the talk of shifting power, this is the moment to prove it.