A wave of government crackdowns is forcing humanitarian groups to leave crisis zones at unprecedented rates, with authorities accusing them of political meddling, violating sovereignty, or breaching regulations, a DevelopmentAid analysis reveals.
The expulsion of aid organizations from conflict-stricken areas is far from being a new phenomenon. It stretches back centuries. Yet, it seems to have accelerated in the 21st century. From 2009 to 2015, Sudan expelled about 20 international NGOs. In 2015, India revoked more than 10,000 NGO licenses, including international humanitarian organizations such as Greenpeace and Amnesty International. Turkey closed down a range of international aid organizations after the 2016 attempted coup.
In just the last five years alone, at least 13 countries have forced humanitarian groups to close, cloaking political crackdowns in creative legal justifications.
From Niger’s military junta branding the Red Cross as “terrorist collaborators” to Libya accusing NGOs of “demographic manipulation”, the closures have halted life-saving services for millions.
This trend is global. More than 50 countries now deploy “foreign agent” laws to criminalize humanitarian work, according to Amnesty International. Meanwhile, 39 of 153 low- and middle-income countries have enacted laws that limit foreign aid to local NGOs.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of the countries that have shut down humanitarian organizations over the last five years.
Africa
Niger
What happened: In January 2025, Niger’s junta government informed the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) of its expulsion, ending 35 years of presence. The decision was announced publicly on May 31, ordering all ICRC offices to close and foreign staff to leave immediately.
Government accusations: The authorities accused the Red Cross of “collusion” with armed groups, alleging meetings with terrorist leaders and providing support to militants.
Reaction: The ICRC categorically denied the accusations, noting that neutral dialogue with all warring sides is standard humanitarian practice.
Impact: Over 2 million people lost access to ICRC-provided healthcare, displacement support, and the monitoring of human rights abuses. Some 2.7 million people in Niger will need aid in 2025.
Libya
What happened: In April 2025, the Norwegian Refugee Council, Terre des Hommes, CESVI, UNHCR, and Doctors Without Borders were among 10 organizations banned by the Tripoli-based government, with offices shuttered and bank accounts frozen.
Government accusations: The authorities accused the NGOs of planning to settle third-country migrants in Libya as well as of “hostile actions that undermine national security”. Officials alleged the groups violated Islamic morals, engaged in money laundering, and altered Libya’s demographic balance.
Reaction: Experts viewed the crackdown as “an attempt to divert attention from the country’s internal issues and to secure concessions, especially from Europe”.
Impact: Hundreds of thousands of migrants lost medical care and protection. Detention abuses surged amid a lack of oversight.
Burkina Faso
What happened: In mid-2025, four foreign NGOs had their licenses revoked, and two domestic groups were suspended.
Government accusations: Authorities cited “formal breaches,” including procedural and data compliance violations, national security concerns, and breaches of registration rules, set against the backdrop of jihadist insurgency threats.
Reaction: The move was criticized as being “politically motivated” and as the extension of “suppression” targeting civil society.
Impact: Health and livelihood programs in insurgency-hit areas were curtailed; civic society was silenced. According to UN data, in 2025, 5.9 million people are in need across food, health, education, and protection services.
Ethiopia
What happened: In mid-2021, Médecins Sans Frontières and the Norwegian Refugee Council faced suspensions during the Tigray conflict.
Government accusations: The authorities accused NGOs of “spreading misinformation,” operating beyond permits, and violating public messaging rules.
Reaction: The UN condemned the suspensions, referring to them as “dangerous” blanket accusations that lack evidence, while aid workers on the ground saw them as an attempt to suppress proof of Tigray’s humanitarian crisis.
Impact: Emergency response was weakened, and human rights observers disappeared. MSF’s 220,000 medical consultations were disrupted, while NRC, having supported 585,000 people in Ethiopia in 2020, was forced to halt food, shelter, and water aid.
Uganda
What happened: In August 2021, 54 NGOs had their activities halted over regulatory non-compliance.
Government accusations: Officials cited non-compliance with the NGO Act, pointing to expired permits and missed audits. Critics alleged that many targeted groups were watchdog organizations or election monitors.
Reaction: Human rights defenders called the suspensions ‘political harassment’ aimed at silencing critics ahead of elections.
Impact: Significant chilling of civic space and restriction of organizations involved in governance, human rights monitoring, and service delivery.
North America
United States
What happened: The closure of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), America’s humanitarian arm, in July 2025 marked a seismic shift in global aid. Responsible for 45% of global humanitarian assistance, USAID was shut after executive orders from the Donald Trump administration froze foreign aid in January and began folding USAID’s functions into the State Department.
Government justification: Framed as an “America First” realignment, the administration argued that foreign assistance was inefficient, politically biased, and needed restructuring to better serve U.S. interests.
Reaction: UN officials warned that the USAID cuts represented a “seismic shock” to humanitarian systems and cautioned, “many will die because that aid is drying up”.
Impact: Massive disruption to funding pipelines, the stalling of projects, and the closure of smaller NGOs, especially in low-income and crisis-hit countries. The Lancet warned its closure would lead to 14 million deaths by 2030.
Latin America
Venezuela
What happened: In February 2024, the government ordered the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) to cease operations and instructed staff to leave the country within 72 hours.
Government accusations: The authorities accused the OHCHR of promoting opposition, collaborating with coup plotters, and undermining sovereignty, describing the UN office as a “colonialist” threat to national security.
Reaction: The OHCHR termed the closure “regrettable”, denouncing it as a “blatant attempt to evade scrutiny” and to “silence independent monitoring” of Venezuela’s human rights crisis.
Impact: Independent human rights monitoring and reporting capacity disappeared amid mounting political repression.
Nicaragua
What happened: In late 2023, Nicaragua’s National Assembly liquidated the Nicaraguan Red Cross, ending the international Red Cross’s presence in the country.
Government accusations: The authorities accused the Red Cross of siding with protesters during the 2018 unrest and “undermining public order,” claiming that the national society had failed to maintain neutrality.
Reaction: Observers viewed the closure as a retaliatory move for the Red Cross’s role in the release of political prisoners and monitoring detention conditions that exposed systemic abuses.
Impact: Loss of a neutral national society that provided emergency care, detention visits, and disaster response.
Middle East and Asia
Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territory
What happened: In August 2025, Israel revoked permits from about 10 NGOs, including Catholic Relief Services, and over 100 groups reported access blockades into Gaza, accusing Israel of weaponizing aid.
Government justification: The Israeli authorities cite security concerns, requiring the disclosure of donor and Palestinian staff lists for vetting to prevent aid diversion or state “delegitimization”.
Reaction: Aid groups accused Israel of “weaponizing humanitarian aid”, stating the move was designed to “control independent organizations, silence advocacy, and censor humanitarian action.”
Impact: Aid shipments stalled at borders, and Gaza faces escalating shortages.
Pakistan
What happened: In 2018, 18 international NGOs were expelled, with additional groups threatened in subsequent years.
Government justification: Alleged regulatory breaches, political meddling, and moral infractions.
Reaction: Western diplomats warned that the expulsion would deprive 11 million Pakistanis of critical support, calling the move “appalling” and “inexplicable”.
Impact: Disruption of development and human rights work affecting programs for women, children, and marginalized communities.
Tajikistan
What happened: In late 2023, the government dissolved 700 NGOs over 18 months, according to official figures.
Government justification: The authorities cited registration and legal compliance issues, although observers described a systematic campaign to eliminate independent civil society.
Reaction: UN Special Rapporteur Mary Lawlor condemned the mass liquidation as a sign of a “deteriorating environment for civil society and human rights defense in Tajikistan.”
Impact: Widespread loss of service providers in educational, environmental, and women’s initiatives, with a dramatic contraction of civic space.
Europe
Belarus
What happened: Over 270 NGOs were liquidated between July and October 2021.
Government justification: Official reasons cited activities “beyond their charters,” legal non-compliance, or alleged threats to public order, although the actions targeted human rights, youth, and independent groups.
Reaction: Human rights defenders denounced the move as a “complete destruction of the country’s legally registered civil society.”
Impact: Civil society networks collapsed; rights defenders were arrested or forced into exile en masse.
Russia
What happened: In December 2021, the Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of Memorial International, one of Russia’s oldest rights groups, under “foreign agent” law enforcement.
Government justification: The authorities cited violations of “foreign agent” law, including the failure to label publications correctly, alleged legal non-compliance, and spurious extremism claims.
Reaction: Human Rights Watch described the liquidation as a “one-two punch to Russia’s human rights movement” and part of a broader strategy to silence dissent.
Impact: Loss of a major watchdog that documented Soviet and contemporary abuses, leading to a chilling effect across Russian civil society and a reduced capacity to document rights abuse.
