As a humanitarian, I am driven by the knowledge that my work makes a tangible difference in the lives of millions of children. It is the principle that all human lives are valued equally that fuels my determination and that of my fellow aid workers, even in the face of immense challenges.

Yet today, we are confronting a crisis far graver than we could have ever imagined: the unbearable reality of choosing which lives to save and which to leave behind. This is not a dilemma we can—or should—accept.

The recent cuts to foreign aid are forcing humanitarian organisations into impossible decisions. At a time when one in every 11 children globally requires humanitarian assistance, we are being compelled to prioritise one crisis over another, one community over another, and, ultimately, one child’s life over another.

Already, we have had to make heart-wrenching decisions to halt life-saving programs. By this, I mean treatment for severely malnourished children or critical medical support for newborn babies in war zones. This is not merely a logistical challenge; it is an ethical crisis that strikes at the very heart of our mission, our soul, and everything we stand for.

Principles under threat

Save the Children was founded over a century ago by Eglantyne Jebb, a woman of extraordinary moral courage and conviction. She established an organisation dedicated to defend the rights of children, to save lives, to protect families, to alleviate suffering, and to restore dignity.

Today, we operate in 115 countries, directly supporting over 105 million children annually. We are often among the first to respond to emergencies, and our commitment to every child, everywhere, is non-negotiable.

Yet, our principles are under unprecedented threat.

In an era of escalating global crises—conflict, climate change, and economic instability—many of the world’s wealthiest nations are slashing their aid budgets. The US, the UK, Germany, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, France, The Netherlands and other traditional donor countries are retreating from their commitments to international solidarity, contributing to a dangerous decline in global assistance.

Cutting aid is not just a failure of moral leadership, it is a strategic miscalculation.

Failing to address poverty, instability, and health crises worldwide only deepens global insecurity, fuelling displacement, economic shocks, and conflict. These problems do not respect borders; they ripple across the globe. When we turn our backs on the world’s most vulnerable, we sow the seeds of future crises that will inevitably reach our own shores,  and children always bear the brunt.

In 2024, a record 120 million people were forcibly displaced by war, violence, and persecution—approximately equivalent to the population of Japan - with displaced people spending, on average, over a decade away from home. Time and again, they tell us their greatest dream is to return. Aid plays a critical role in helping people return.

In Ukraine, we’ve helped families like Natalia* and her daughter Sofiya* repair their war-damaged home. In Ethiopia, we’ve supported women like Rukia* to start small businesses and rebuild their lives. Aid rebuilds societies, fosters stability, and drives economic recovery. 

Aid also supports people who remain trapped in displacement, for whom no solution can be found. Like Aliya* and Zahra*, two girls in Al Hol detention camp in Syria. They grew up there. Not welcome in their countries, their faces show glimpses of hope, yet their eyes tell a story of misplaced guilt for something they didn’t commit.

Short-sighted

Short-sighted decisions to cut aid are making the world less healthy, less safe, and less prosperous. The share of children living in conflict zones has nearly doubled over the past 30 years, while global military spending has soared to $2.4 trillion in 2023. Meanwhile, investments in conflict prevention and humanitarian aid are dwindling.

The 2025 global humanitarian appeal seeks US$44.7 billion to provide life-saving aid to 190 million people across 32 countries and nine refugee-hosting regions. If fully funded, that is about $235 per person per year, $20 dollars a month, or 65 cents a day, that's less than a cup of coffee in many Western countries.  The 2024 appeal was 45 percent funded. To call aid inefficient is not only disingenuous but also a cynical manipulation of public sentiment.  

In Gaza, Haiti, and Sudan, our teams are overwhelmed by the sheer number of children—some barely school-aged—who need psychosocial support after witnessing horrors no child should endure.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, armed groups are deliberately targeting and abducting children for recruitment. We cannot afford to ignore these realities. Investment in development and humanitarian assistance is not charity—it is a strategic imperative and above all a moral obligation. Cutting aid will only deepen crises, creating a cycle of instability that will cost far more to address later.

Impossible choices

With shrinking funding, aid workers are being forced to make impossible choices: Do we feed children in drought-stricken areas or provide medical care to those in war-torn regions? Do we respond to floods or invest in climate resilience? Each decision means some children will receive life-saving assistance—while others will not. 

This moral burden weighs heavily on all aid workers. Now more than ever. Save the Children believes that every child’s life has equal value, but the stark reality is that when funding is cut, lives are lost.

The global landscape is shifting, with new powers, shifting alliances, and increasing unpredictability. These changes bring new risks to our mission. The question is not whether we can afford to sustain aid—it is whether we can afford not to. This is a moment that demands solidarity and shared responsibility. Without it, we risk undoing decades of progress in poverty reduction, healthcare, and education.

Governments play an irreplaceable role in sustaining aid efforts. We cannot normalise a future where saving some lives means accepting the loss of others. Because on what ground is one life considered worth less?

As our founder, Eglantyne Jebb, once said: “We have to touch the imagination of the world. The world is not ungenerous, but it is unimaginative and very busy.”

It is time to reimagine a world where compassion and international solidarity between communities once more trumps cynicism, mistrust and othering —a world where every child’s life truly counts.

*Names have been changed to protect identity.