A growing crisis is unfolding: poorer nations that have long opened their borders to millions of refugees might soon start closing them. That’s the stark warning issued by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC), as global funding for humanitarian work continues to plummet.
As Western governments tighten asylum laws—Britain and Germany among them—financial aid to refugee programs is also drying up. This double hit is creating profound uncertainty for developing nations that shoulder nearly three-quarters of the world’s displaced people. And here's the part that few are talking about: if the money stops flowing, those very nations could shut their doors.
Charlotte Slente, Secretary General of the DRC, expressed deep concern in an interview from Geneva. “Many of these host countries feel abandoned,” she said, noting that donor fatigue and shifting political priorities are forcing some states to reconsider their generosity. “Once governments realize the funds are no longer coming,” she warned, “we might see stricter policies and fewer open borders.”
She pointed to Uganda as a troubling early signal. Once hailed as one of Africa’s most progressive hosts, welcoming countless refugees from Sudan, South Sudan, and Somalia, Uganda has recently started imposing new limits. The Ugandan government has not yet responded to questions about the changes, but the shift hints at growing pressure even in countries once considered models of refugee hospitality.
Chad, too, is reaching its breaking point. Nearly 900,000 Sudanese refugees have fled there amid Sudan’s ongoing civil war, only to find that aid is woefully insufficient and camps are bursting at the seams. Slente, who visited Chad in November, described worsening conditions and scarce resources. “Entire families are surviving on the bare minimum,” she said, sounding both frustrated and alarmed.
The Danish Refugee Council itself is feeling the squeeze. Due to drastic funding cuts—driven largely by the United States under President Donald Trump—the organization has been forced to reduce operations worldwide. The U.S. once made up about 20% of DRC’s funding, but that figure has fallen sharply. As a result, nearly 2,000 aid positions have been eliminated, and life-sustaining programs, from nutrition initiatives in Cameroon to maternal aid in Afghanistan, have been scaled back.
For now, European donors have mostly maintained their commitments, but Slente fears that may not last as more nations divert budgets toward defense. “It’s not just a humanitarian issue anymore,” she emphasized. “When frontline countries falter, the entire global system for refugee protection begins to crack.”
And this is where the debate gets difficult: should Western countries prioritize border control and defense spending over humanitarian aid? Or does cutting support simply shift the crisis onto poorer nations already stretched to breaking point?
Many experts warn that ignoring this imbalance will only heighten global instability. After all, when safe havens vanish, displaced families have no choice but to keep moving—often toward the very borders now being fortified against them.
What do you think? Should developing nations continue to bear the weight of the world’s refugee crisis, or is it time for wealthier states to step up and honor their promises?
