So said Ed Murrow, the American broadcaster and correspondent during the Second World War. The principle still holds: truth (accuracy and honesty) and credibility (competency, consistency, reliability) remain essential to building institutional trust. Yet in today’s information landscape, applying this principle has become far more complex and contested in an age shaped by harmful information.

In times of crisis or uncertainty – and these are profoundly uncertain times – people increasingly turn to information sources they perceive as relevant and aligned with their personal and lived experience, rather than those grounded solely in factual accuracy. Truth alone no longer always persuades. Emotion, identity and repetition can entrench misbeliefs in powerful, sometimes harmful ways. In such an environment, even reaching agreement on what constitutes a fact is difficult. For humanitarian organisations, whose access, acceptance and ability to operate depend on trust, navigating this fragmented, emotionally charged information space has become not only an operational challenge, but also a security risk.

2.1 Incentivised to Hostility

This online dynamic has been described as the ‘filter bubble’,¹ a term used to explain how search engines and social media platforms serve content that algorithms think we want to see, based on our searches, likes and clicks. Eli Pariser warned that being confined to such echo chambers reduces exposure to diverse perspectives and increases the risk of isolation in our views or rejection of opposing viewpoints and sources of information due to confirmation bias.²

Although some analyses show that users do encounter opposing views online, these interactions often trigger annoyance or hostility rather than reflection or debate.³ Algorithms reinforce this by amplifying divisive content, since hostility drives engagement and engagement drives profits for platform companies. As Pariser notes, platforms are effectively “incentivizing us to fight with each other when we are online”. This dynamic is compounded by the online disinhibition effect, whereby people tend to express opinions more freely online due to factors like anonymity (hidden identities), invisibility (not being seen by others we communicate with) and asynchronicity (not engaging in real time).⁴

These forces contribute to an erosion of shared reality. Increasingly, there are claims that the impact of disasters are inflated, that scientifically validated medical treat- ments are unsafe or that documented atrocities are fabricated or exaggerated. This reflects what many describe as a ‘post-trust’ world – one in which people are especially vulnerable to harmful information and deepening polarization over what is considered true or false. Such polarization increases the risk of social unrest, violence and even armed conflict. There is also a secondary level of manipulation in today’s post-trust world, where institutions themselves come under scrutiny and their legitimacy is increasingly contested. In some contexts, polarization between opposing political, social or geopolitical dynamics has created conditions in which public authorities may challenge or overturn established processes or outcomes, despite the absence of clear evidence of interference or wrongdoing. The erosion of institutional credibility poses profound questions for public trust. In turn, as humanitarian actors mandated by public authorities, National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies face heightened reputational risks if confidence in governance deteriorates.

The internet makes it easier than ever to find information that confirms existing beliefs – a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the ‘Google delusion’. Digital spaces amplify confirmation bias by helping users to find like-minded communities and cite information that reinforces their views while disregarding contradictory information⁵ or expert advice. While the internet offers access to vast knowledge, it also accelerates the spread of harmful information, encourages argument over dialogue and conspiracy over evidence.⁶

Researchers Kavanagh and Rich (2018) have described this phenomenon as truth decay, defined by a set of four related trends: (1) increasing disagreement about facts and analytical interpretations of facts and data; (2) a blurring of the line between opinion and fact; (3) the increasing relative volume, and resulting influence, of opinion and personal experience over fact; and (4) declining trust in formerly respected sources of factual information.⁷ Instead of using facts to inform our beliefs, information – regardless of its truthfulness – is increasingly used to justify the beliefs already held by individuals and the groups they affiliate with. As they conclude: “We’re no longer willing to agree on something as seemingly fundamental as what counts as evidence, facts, or truth anymore”.⁸

2.2 Trust: What is Being Lost?

Trust is grounded in expectations, involves vulnerability and builds gradually, yet once broken may be lost completely. Rousseau et al. (1998) define trust as “a psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behaviour of another”.⁹ This highlights a key dimension: trust requires accepting vulnerability to those in whom it is placed.

People often trust what aligns with their worldview or community, rather than what is factually accurate. Harmful information campaigns exploit this tendency, distorting truth and diminishing the visibility and influence of credible sources. In contexts where independent media and public trust in institutions remain strong, Edward R Murrow’s notion of truth-based credibility still underpins effective communication. But where information is instrumentalized, persuasiveness often relies less on truth and more on emotional resonance, social identity or perceived authority.

“I think the major thing that people lack is they should take time to verify information from the correct sources because in most cases it’s what people see or just hear is what they end up going to redistribute to other people.”

Public trust has also been eroded by the widespread perception that governments largely failed to manage crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change.¹⁰ This is especially true for communities that are marginalized and at risk, who often view authorities less as providers of needed services, and more as sources of demands. Ironically, these are the very people most at risk during crises, yet their lived experiences of exclusion often make them more likely to distrust those offering help.¹¹

As psychologist Joe Pierre observes, vaccine hesitancy driven by misinformation “may very well end up being more lethal than any other misbelief in our lifetimes”.¹² Although social media platforms took steps to revise their algorithms to deprioritize some medical misinformation, the damage was already significant.¹³

The IFRC’s 2022 World Disasters Report: Trust, Equity and Local Action – Lessons from the COVID‑19 pandemic to avert the next global crisis highlights that multiple studies suggest that “trust was one of the best predictors of a country’s success or failure in handling the COVID-19 pandemic”.¹⁴ Many communities had extremely limited access to health education and information.¹⁵ Information from social media platforms or state news outlets was often distrusted, and many people did not understand the rationale behind public health measures. In several countries, governments issued contradictory advice and oversimplified or false beliefs took hold – for example, claims that COVID-19 was only dangerous to older and clinically vulnerable people¹⁶ or that “COVID-19 does not kill black people”.¹⁷ These narratives, compounded by vaccine-related disinformation (such as sterility or microchip claims) and entrenched anti-vaccine beliefs, drove harmful behaviours including vaccine refusal and avoidance of life-saving health measures.

Pierre defines beliefs as “cognitive representations of past, present, and future reality, encompassing our inner experiences, the world around us, and the world beyond.”¹⁸ He models beliefs as probability judgements, emphasizing that many of our beliefs are held with excessive conviction, often at the expense of acknowledging appropriate levels of uncertainty. People often tend to adopt an absolute ‘belief that’ stance, even on matters that would more appropriately warrant a probabilistic ‘belief in’ that acknowledges uncertainty and complexity. Deciding who to trust or mistrust often comes down to assessments of source credibility – based on perceived trustworthiness and expertise. When these perceptions are distorted, the very foundation of humanitarian and public health response is at risk.

2.3 Trust in Institutions

Trust is critical to the legitimacy, effectiveness and acceptance of humanitarian action. This was strongly emphasized at the 2019 International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement which recognized that trust in principled humanitarian action is indispensable to serving at-risk people and encouraged all members of the conference to act to preserve and develop this trust.¹⁹

The decision to place trust on the agenda reflected broader global concerns: the erosion of trust in institutions and governments, growing public scrutiny, and rising demands for accountability. Where there is limited understanding of the Movement’s rules and regulations, reputational risks grow and trust declines. As the Commission report²⁰ stressed: “Trust is the most critical currency for the future of humanitarian action, and one which stems from humility and being truthful and transparent.” It identified three key priorities:

1. Community engagement and accountability.
2. A conducive environment for principled humanitarian action.
3. Integrity and risk sharing.

While harmful information was not yet identified as a central concern, the focus on trust, truth and transparency reflected growing recognition that both the Movement and states need to do more to earn trust. It also underscored a broader challenge: preserving the space for principled humanitarian action – something the Movement cannot achieve alone.²¹ This was reaffirmed in the 2024 Council of Delegates resolution on “respect and support for principled humanitarian action”²² which recalls collective Movement commitments to strengthen integrity, accountability and trust.

Crucially, trust in humanitarian action does not rest solely on humanitarian actors. It also depends on a conducive environment – one in which principled, effective and accountable action is actively supported. Such an environment is shaped by the legal, political and operational frameworks established by states and other actors. This includes respect for humanitarian principles, flexible and needs-based funding, protec- tion of humanitarian access and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities of various actors. As highlighted in the Commission discussions in 2019, states play a decisive role: their policies and practices can either foster trust and enable principled humanitarian action or hinder it. States also have a responsibility to support and facilitate the work of the National Society in their country, in their auxiliary role to public authorities. Creating such an environment requires sustained dialogue, shared responsibility and a commitment to removing obstacles that undermine trust. Without these conditions, even well-intentioned humanitarian efforts risk being delayed, politicized or perceived as partial – ultimately eroding the very trust they aim to build. By the time of the 34th International Conference four years later, harmful information was recognized as part of this deeper crisis of trust.

Erosion of trust in non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has been documented in the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, which surveys trust in institutions across 28 countries. An analysis of 25 years of survey data provides valuable insights for humanitarian actors navigating this fragile landscape of shifting perceptions of trust in NGOs.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) research highlights that trust in public institutions rests on two core pillars: competence – the ability to meet expectations through operational efficiency, capacity and sound judgements – and intentions – acting in good faith, guided by values and principles. Trust is dynamic: indi- viduals form and adjust their trust based on personal experiences and the information available to them. By contrast, distrust often arises not from actual performance but from perceptions of bias, cynicism, disengagement or expectations of betrayal.²³

The effectiveness and even the feasibility of humanitarian action depends on trust across a broad range of stakeholders, including affected populations, governments, non-state actors, donors and technology companies. Without trust, humanitarian action risks losing the access, support and legitimacy it critically needs.

2.4 Integrity, Perception and the Fragile Foundation of Trust

Cases of misconduct such as abuse, exploitation, fraud or mismanagement have severely eroded public trust, especially when humanitarian organizations respond without transparency or empathy. Scandals involving sexual abuse in organizations have demonstrated how quickly confidence can collapse.²⁴ The politicization of aid – when governments, armed actors or other parties manipulate humanitarian action for polit- ical purposes – further undermines perceptions of neutrality and leaves communities sceptical of humanitarian motives.

In today’s landscape of digital transparency and constant scrutiny, humanitarian actors are no longer the sole or even primary narrators of their work. They now compete for legitimacy not only with governments and non-state actors but also with communities themselves, who increasingly speak, organize and question responses in real time.

Addressing integrity issues is therefore essential. Allegations of partiality, corruption or mismanagement can deflect attention away from life-saving work and damage trust both internally within humanitarian organizations and externally with the public. The overall decline of trust in institutions is reflected in heightened scrutiny of the integrity of National Societies and other Movement components. This demands both proactive promotion of mandates, principles and activities, and robust, strategic approaches to issues management, reputational challenges and related risks.

At the same time, humanitarian organizations face unprecedented demands for report- ing, compliance and proof of impact. Failures must be acknowledged and addressed openly and transparently. In parallel, there must also be concerted efforts across sec- tors to counter the intentional spread of harmful information, which is both unethical and dangerous.

Finally, a lack of, or slow progress in, localizing humanitarian aid has further fuelled mistrust. Many communities perceive humanitarian action as top-down and dominated by international actors with limited local representation or contextual understanding. In some contexts, the sector is seen as Western-dominated, a perception reinforced by standards, codes of conduct and coordination mechanisms developed by organizations from the Global North.

The current humanitarian ‘reset’ or ‘renewal’ – driven by the unprecedented reduction in humanitarian funding in 2025 and beyond – and resulting in widespread restructuring or programme cuts – is amplifying harmful information. Sudden programme closures, staff layoffs and uncertainty – often communicated inadequately to affected com- munities – creates a void that harmful information, distrust and political narratives quickly fill. When communities are not meaningfully engaged or when changes are poorly explained, speculation arises that aid is being politicized, diverted or withdrawn entirely. Critics and bad-faith actors exploit this uncertainty to undermine trust in humanitarian action. Without clear, transparent communication and visible inclusion of local voices, the reset or renewal risks becoming fertile ground for suspicion, polarization and harmful narratives.

2.5Decline of Expertise and its Impact on Trust

The erosion of trust in expert knowledge, described as the “death of expertise” (Nichols), has deepened public scepticism toward authoritative information. The internet’s promise of open access and free expression has blurred the line between reliable information and harmful information, enabling both to coexist: one guiding us and the other misleading us.²⁵ Emotion often shapes belief before evidence is even considered. While questioning claims and evaluating sources is essential, it increasingly occurs outside traditional frameworks of expertise.

Humanitarian organizations are generally perceived as expert actors, valued for their technical skills, operational experience and legal and policy knowledge. Yet this legit- imacy is not fixed: it depends on context, conduct and how well organizations meet growing expectations around localization, accountability and effective response.

Meanwhile, the information landscape has shifted dramatically. Social media has empowered communities to challenge traditional gatekeepers of knowledge and nar- rative, elevating peer voices over institutional or credentialed experts. As outlined in The Death of Expertise: “Facts and reason are under siege on multiple fronts”.²⁶ Notably, Edelman’s 2006 Trust Barometer marked the first time that ‘a person like me’ emerged as one of the most credible sources of information.

In this environment, expertise alone is no longer enough. Trust must be continuously earned through transparency, humility and responsiveness. This shift raises critical questions explored in the next section: Where is trust in humanitarian organizations genuinely misplaced – requiring constructive criticism, evaluation and open dialogue? Where is distrust deliberately manufactured to erode trust and legitimacy? And how can we tell the difference?

2.6Community Engagement: A Bridge to Trust

“So then, the advantage we had … is that when we were finally able to go in to carry out an assessment and have contact with the community leaders, we would compare the information coming out in the press or the information sometimes given to us by the municipalities with what the people in the community themselves told us. And without a doubt, we went with what they said, because there were huge differences in terms of losses, impact, destruction, displaced families, etc., compared to what was being reported… that’s why we always made a point of seeking information from the people who were suffering at that moment, the ones who were actually facing the emergency.”

Community engagement and accountability (CEA) is a vital bridge to building and sustaining trust. Trust grows through proximity, inclusive participation, timely and transparent communication and shared decision-making with people and communities. CEA also ensures that communities have access to accurate, relevant and potentially life-saving information – making it essential not only for effective humanitarian response but also for the safety and security of staff and operations.²⁷

Community engagement played a pivotal role in rebuilding trust during the 2018 Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Fear, rumours and misinformation fuelled mistrust, leading at times to violence against Red Cross teams, particularly those conducting safe and dignified burials. This resistance blocked access to life-saving care and may have contributed to further transmission of the virus in vulnerable communities.

To respond, the DRC Red Cross placed community engagement at the centre of its strategy. Volunteers maintained daily dialogue with communities to address concerns and rebuild trust. Using a first-of-its-kind feedback system, they collected over 394,000 pieces of community feedback, enabling humanitarian actors to adapt approaches to local realities. Volunteers went door to door sharing information on how to prevent, detect and respond to Ebola, hosted radio talk shows, organized mobile cinemas and conducted outreach to vul- nerable groups, including people with disabilities, children and women’s associations. This approach had a measurable impact: the success rate of safe and dignified burials remained consistently high at 80%. Community resistance to safe and dignified burials dropped drastically from 79% in the first two months of the operation to just 8% in September 2019. Trust, dialogue and locally driven action proved essential to stopping the spread of Ebola.²⁹

Trust is difficult to establish and even harder to rebuild once lost. The IFRC identified trust as one of the strongest predictors of a successful emergency response, making preparedness fundamentally dependent on cultivating trust within communities and societies. To support this, the IFRC developed the Community Trust Index – an evidence-based tool to measure and strengthen trust between National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the communities they serve. The index tracks changes in trust over time and identifies the factors that influence it across different contexts. By uncovering barriers to trust, it guides tailored activities that promote trust-based behaviours, improve community acceptance and enhance programme effectiveness. It also links trust to compliance, governance and inclusive, community-informed decision‑making, reinforcing accountability and impact.

Contributor Insight 2.7

Trust in local organizations endures amid a shifting information landscape

An analysis of Community Trust Index data from seven countries, collected between 2022 and 2024, provides important insights into how trust in National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is evolving in a world increasingly shaped by misinformation and disinformation. The Index measures two key dimensions of trust: competence – reflecting perceptions of an organization’s effectiveness, skills and capacity; and values – encom- passing ethics, integrity and alignment with community interests.

Overall, communities report high levels of trust in their National Societies, with an average score of 8.15 out of 10. However, a closer look reveals emerging ethical concerns, particu- larly around transparency, neutrality and openness to community feedback.

Transparency is emerging as a significant challenge. In nearly all contexts studied (Figure 2.1), it ranked as the weakest driver of trust, with an average score of just 6.34 out of 10. Many communities view humanitarian actors as reluctant to openly share mistakes or acknowledge shortcomings – an impression amplified by the digital era’s demand for real-time accountability. This trend is particularly pronounced in Mongolia, Ecuador and Zimbabwe, where gaps in transparent communication may create opportunities for misinformation to spread.

Fig 2.1

Cross-country comparison of the Community Trust Index across all measured sub-dimensions in seven countries

At the same time, perceptions of neutrality are increasingly fragile in today’s polarized and politically charged environments. Neutrality ranked as the second weakest driver of trust, with an average score of 7.31 out of 10. In contexts where humanitarian organizations were once broadly regarded as impartial, these assumptions are now being challenged. For example, in Zimbabwe, neutrality scores dropped sharply to 2.2 out of 10 among the general population and just 1.03 among aid recipients. In such settings, the principle of neutrality risks being undermined by contested narratives and politicized messaging, threatening the very foundation of trust.

Compounding these concerns is a limited openness to community feedback. While essential for correcting misinformation and fostering dialogue, feedback ranked as the third weakest driver of trust, with an average score of 7.74 out of 10 – indicating that many communities feel discomfort or hesitation in voicing concerns or complaints. This lack of effective feedback mechanisms hampers the ability of humanitarian actors to respond and adapt to local needs. Without clear, accessible and inclusive channels for engagement, trust becomes more vulnerable to erosion, rumours can take hold and humanitarian organizations risk being perceived as disconnected or unaccountable.

Together, these findings underscore that in today’s complex information landscape, delivering aid alone is not enough. To maintain and strengthen trust, humanitarian organ- izations must commit to transparent, neutral and responsive engagement that meets community expectations and builds resilience against misinformation.

Youth and the Trust Gap: A Growing Disconnection

Younger respondents (ages 18–30) consistently expressed lower trust in National Societies than older generations. While this may reflect broader generational shifts in how institu- tional legitimacy is perceived, it also signals a crucial vulnerability: if humanitarian actors are not perceived as trustworthy by youth – who are often more active in digital spaces – misinformation is more likely to fill the vacuum. Younger audiences may be particularly sensitive to perceived hypocrisy, opaque communication or misaligned values and less forgiving of mistakes that go unacknowledged.

The Role of Engagement in Countering Distrust

One of the strongest protective factors against erosion of trust is direct engagement. Communities with established relationships with National Societies reported trust levels somewhat higher (8.5 versus 7.8) than those without such connections. This reinforces the view that localized, participatory engagement serves as a buffer against the destabilizing effects of harmful information. By contrast, the absence of dialogue or proximity can foster suspicion – leaving humanitarian access, neutrality and security more exposed.

Gefra Fulane

Research Coordinator, CEA

IFRC, Geneva

2.7 Facts and Feelings: A Perception Challenge

In an era of increasing volumes of harmful information and rising public distrust, humanitarian organizations face a growing challenge: principled, fact-based commu- nication often struggles to compete with emotionally charged narratives, polarizing content and opinion-driven discourse. Even when – perhaps especially when – grounded in evidence and neutrality, humanitarian messaging is often drowned out by louder, more emotionally resonant voices, particularly online. This creates a significant perception challenge. Trust and integrity may be questioned and principles seen as detached from realities or lacking empathy.

The result is a trust and perception problem: neutrality, facts and rationality are increas- ingly misunderstood or mistrusted. When emotion and polarization drive engagement, even well-intentioned communications risk being reframed as political or partial. This distorts how communities perceive humanitarian work and undermines the credibility of those committed to principled humanitarian action. Navigating this landscape requires sustained community engagement, especially offline, where dialogue can foster prox- imity and trust. Online, it may also involve recognizing the limits of engagement and, in some cases, closing comment sections or refraining from responding when dialogue cannot be conducted in good faith.

Among the seven Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,³¹ neutrality and impartiality are often the least understood and provoke the most controversy. This is somewhat ironic, given that neutrality’s purpose is precisely to avoid entanglement in controversy. At its core, neutrality is not an end in itself, but a method to preserve trust and access in polarized or politicized environments.

Reconciling how to carry out principled humanitarian action lies at the heart of what humanitarianism is – and is not. Critiques of neutrality often argue that “in situations of injustice, neutrality only helps the oppressor, never the victim.”³² Such critiques serve as warnings against moral or political indifference and silence or passiveness in the face of injustice, violence, oppression or discrimination. At times, accusations of silence or complicity are directed at components of the Movement, especially during armed conflicts. Failing to speak can leave an information vacuum that others may fill, eroding trust. Yet speaking out can be equally fraught, as statements may be perceived as ‘taking sides’ – especially in limited, emotionally charged online comment sections. In this way, humanitarian principles are pulled into political narratives that can distort their purpose. See Chapter 7, on page 257 for more on the fundamental principles, including dilemmas such as equivalence.

Neutrality is often defined by what it is not. Overlooked is that neutrality is not neutral toward suffering. It does not mean moral indifference or denial of injustice. Rather, it means refraining from taking sides in hostilities or engaging in political, racial, religious or ideological controversies. This discipline can enable humanitarian actors to gain the confidence of all parties and access to people in need.

In today’s information age, where warring parties actively use online platforms to frame polarizing narratives and civilians engage in digital discourse, neutrality also requires refraining from being drawn into a war of words. It must be upheld both online and offline.

Ultimately, neutrality is about building trust as a means to an end: enabling the delivery of impartial humanitarian action. To safeguard it, principled humanitarian actors must consistently advocate for the protection of a neutral and impartial humanitarian space, free from political influence. States also have a key role in preserving this humanitarian space. The ability to protect and assist victims of armed conflicts, in accordance with the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, often depends on strict adherence to the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence. These principles remain the essential tools to access the most at-risk people and to gain their trust.

That does not mean that the Movement components always ‘get it right’ in what they say – or choose not to say. Timing, consistency and clarity remain essential and difficult. These dilemmas are explored further in Chapter 7, on page 257 on the fundamental principles.

2.8 Responding to Harmful Information: Building Trust in Crises

Responding to harmful information requires more than increasing the volume of com- munication or correcting falsehoods. These approaches alone do not build trust and can even backfire, particularly during armed conflicts, political unrest or situations marked by discrimination. Effective responses go beyond countering narratives; they focus on disrupting harmful information and strengthening resilience at both organizational and societal levels. Trust is built through proximity, understanding, access to services and a sense of shared ownership.³³ Crucially, it generally cannot be created in the middle of a crisis; it must be cultivated over time.

Trust is the foundation of humanitarian action. Without it, our services cannot reach those who need them most. It enables cooperation, open communication and gives communities the confidence to call on us in times of crisis, knowing we will preserve life and support recovery. In my time as a volunteer and Red Cross Action Team member, I have seen how trust allows us to reach the most vulnerable people without resistance, strengthen resilience and encourage participation in rebuilding and preparedness. Saving lives is not only about speed or skill, it is about the depth of trust we have built, because in emergencies, trust is truly transformative.”

The COVID-19 pandemic, the most extensive disaster in living memory, exposed deep fractures in trust within and between countries. Harmful information became a major barrier, undermining public health efforts and fuelling social division. Where trust was strong, compliance with public health measures such as social distancing and vacci- nation was higher. Where trust was weak, these same measures became politicized, contested and fragmented. The experience underscores a critical lesson: trust is foundational to crisis preparedness and response and it emerged as one of the strongest predictors of successful response. Preparedness is inherently local and built through proximity and sustained engagement, and reinforced through transparency long before crisis strikes.

Humanitarian scholar Hugo Slim observes that trust in humanitarian action is under pres- sure and organizations must confront difficult questions: Can parties to conflict trust humanitarians to be neutral and impartial? Can vulnerable people trust humanitarian organizations to deliver aid fairly and treat them with dignity? Can donor governments and generous publics be sure their support will be well spent? Can humanitarian organ- izations trust each other to work in common cause?³⁴ Slim argues that humanitarian organizations themselves have contributed to the trust deficit. Research by Grand Challenges Canada also makes this link, noting that a lack of transparent communi- cation, conflicting mandates and failure to protect communities when needed can exacerbate distrust. These shortcomings not only erode public confidence but also create fertile ground for harmful information to thrive – further deepening scepticism and reluctance to trust humanitarian organizations.³⁵

2.9 Transparency and Identifiability: Foundations for Trust

Digital virality is rarely organic; it is often deliberately engineered by a small number of influential accounts that dominate the attention economy, shaping beliefs and behaviours across platforms. As Singer and Brooking note: “On social media, everyone may be entitled to their own facts, but rarely do they form their own opinions. There’s someone else manufacturing the beliefs that go viral online.”³⁶ In this environment, identifiability becomes a cornerstone of trust. Trust depends not just on what is said, but on who is saying it – whether an individual, an institution, a troll or an AI system. In particular, “It helps answer some of the questions that trust inspires us to ask: Is there a recognisable and persistent identity to the institutions and individuals behind the myriad websites one might visit?”³⁷ Identifiability supports reputation, accountability and helps distinguish credible sources from malicious actors.³⁸

The Bengio Report on AI safety (see Chapter 1, on page 29) warns that the rapid spread of AI-generated content could further erode trust in the information environment.General-purpose AI can now produce (and spread) both accurate and false content – including synthetic media – at an unprecedented scale. This raises the risk that people may begin to distrust information altogether. This dynamic could undermine public debate (and in democracies, democratic processes). Malicious actors can exploit this ambiguity and distrust through the so-called ‘liar’s dividend’ – dismissing real evidence as fake. However, societies may adapt over time, developing new norms and tools to evaluate credibility, much as they did with past technologies like image, video and audio editing.³⁹ But until such norms take hold, uncertainty and distrust are likely to deepen.

For humanitarian actors, real-time monitoring of both the information and operational environment (online and offline) is essential to understand the type, narratives, impact and potential harm of harmful information. Yet the accessibility of such tools and systems available for verifying information has not kept pace with the speed and scale of harmful information – particularly given the financial constraints faced by humanitarian actors.

Transparency is a prerequisite for trust and a core element of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. It underspins accountability by ensuring clear and honest information flows between humanitarian organisations and affected people. Transparency is embedded in key sectoral standards, including the Sphere Common Standards, which emphasise feedback mechanisms and participation, the Good Humanitarian Donorship Principles and the IFRC’s Guidelines for Emergency Assessment. Cross reference Chapter 5.

Concluding Remarks: Trust, Truth and Preparedness

We are already living through an information crisis. Future emergency preparedness must include equitable access to reliable information, supported by early warning sys- tems that serve all communities, especially the most at risk. Harmful information is not only eroding trust in humanitarian action, it is fuelling societal division and undermining cooperation at a time when unity is urgently needed to face global challenges.

As the World Economic Forum warned, misinformation and disinformation are no longer just communications problems – they are systemic threats that aggravate nearly everyother global risk. The 2025 Global Risks Report underscores that: “Misinformation and disinformation and societal polarization remain key current risks” and explains how the accelerating spread of false or misleading information amplifies other major risks – from state-based armed conflict to extreme weather events.⁴¹

In such a fragmented and contested information space, the voices of affected populations risk being drowned out, distorted or co-opted. Trust cannot be demanded; it must be built through repeated action, transparency, accountability and integrity. Resilience against harmful information requires more than just correcting falsehoods, it requires sustained engagement, openness and meaningful participation. Humanitarian organisations must also actively communicate who they are, what they do, their impact and why they act – making a clear, compelling case for principled humanitarian action and for the preservation of a neutral and impartial humanitarian space, free from political influence. Despite the barriers posed by polarised perceptions, principled humanitarian organisations can maintain – and even rebuild – trust and acceptance in the face of harmful information. A critical question going forward is whether trust and proximity at the community level can serve as a firewall against the spread or impact of harmful information. Cross reference Chapter 3 on page 103 and Chapter 6, on page 211 explore this question.

Asks, Aims and Recommendations

States and policy‑makers

• Establish rights‑based policy frameworks that safeguard access to reliable information in humanitarian crises.
• Embed trust‑building into crisis preparedness and response plans.
• Invest in early‑warning and monitoring systems to detect and counter harmful narratives.
• Support National Societies in their auxiliary role, ensuring independence, impartiality, neutrality and integrity are respected.
• Ensure rapid rebuttals of falsehoods that threaten humanitarian access, action and security.

For Technology Platforms

• Detect and mitigate harmful content that undermines humanitarian action and trust.
• Share relevant data and insights safely with humanitarian actors to support real-time response.
• Ensure moderation, fact-checking and AI tools work in low-bandwidth, multilingual environments.
• Collaborate with humanitarian actors on verification and labelling mechanisms to amplify credible content.

For Humanitarian Actors

• Develop policies, guidelines, standards and metrics (e.g., Community Trust Index (CTI) and Community Engagement and Accountability (CEA)) to measure and track trust and harmful information, and guide responses.
• Embed trust as an operational asset across preparedness, response and recovery.
• Communicate transparently and inclusively, correcting falsehoods rapidly and co-creating messages with communities.
• Train staff and volunteers in rumour management, digital safety (including protection from online harassment) and culturally sensitive engagement.
• Strengthen real-time analysis of and response to community feedback, adapting visibly to concerns and sharing lessons learned to build collective resilience.

For Communities and Local Leaders

• Act as trusted intermediaries by amplifying verified information and countering rumours.
• Partner with humanitarian actors to co-create rumour-tracking and verification systems.
• Sustain trust through dialogue in schools, faith institutions and community centres.
• Engage in participatory feedback and research to ensure that responses reflect local priorities.

Endnotes