Trust is essential to humanitarian action. Without the trust of affected populations, public authorities and donors, humanitarian organizations cannot reach or respond effectively to the needs of the most vulnerable people, including many migrants. Yet in an era of misinformation, that trust is increasingly at risk, especially for migrants who experience harm, discrimination and exploitation along their journeys. When misinformation erodes trust and fuels fear, migrants may avoid seeking critical assistance and support, with life-threatening consequences.

Evidence from research led by the Red Cross Red Crescent Global Migration Lab (the Lab)¹, involving over 20,000 migrants across 34 countries, highlights how misinformation impacts migrants’ willingness and ability to access humanitarian assistance and protection. Studies related to the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in humanitarian action, and missing migrant women and children consistently show that inaccurate or inaccessible information undermines safety and dignity throughout migration journeys.²

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a study by the Lab involving more than 3,200 migrants across eight countries confirmed that a major barrier to accessing health services – including COVID-19 treatment and vaccines – was the lack of accessible information, particularly in migrants’ languages and via trusted channels.³ As one migrant in the UK explained, “people are very confused … they are not getting the right information ... They do not know what to do or even where to go to get information …” In a parallel survey of 52 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 90% confirmed these concerns, reporting that poor availability of translated information and limited awareness of how and where to access vaccines were key barriers to migrants staying healthy and safe.⁴ This lack of reliable information fuelled vaccine hesitancy and heightened health risks – exacerbating migrants’ vulnerabilities.⁵

Beyond public health emergencies, misinformation continues to endanger migrants. Research with 16,000 migrants across 15 countries found that access to accurate, practical information – such as contact details for services or legal guidance – was crucial to reducing exploitation and ensuring safer journeys. Without it, many migrants are forced to rely on unverified sources of information. As one migrant in Australia highlighted: “… we suffer from dodgy [unreliable] information provided to us by migration agents, for example”. Misinformation also fosters mistrust in humanitarian organizations, especially when they are not perceived as independent, but as aligned with authorities. This perception deters migrants from seeking essential support out of fear of arrest, detention or deportation.⁶

Research by the Lab on missing migrant women and children, based on discussions with over 800 participants across 17 countries, further reinforces how misinformation and distrust contribute to increased vulnerability and loss of life during migration.⁷ Migrants cited limited access to accurate information about how to access essential services and route-specific risks as key factors in exposure to threats, including human trafficking. Many migrants reported receiving false or misleading information before departure, often online or from smugglers – which shaped unrealistic expectations and led to harm. As one migrant in Africa noted, “My journey was just misinformation… at times you might ask questions and still get wrong answers.” Another in the Americas said, “The information did not help me at all because it was all a lie, the guide scammed us...” Social media, while helpful in some cases for staying connected, was often described as a “double-edged sword” – a source of both connection and harmful information.

Misinformation and disinformation about migrants also impact their safety, dignity and well-being by shaping public opinion and policy. As highlighted by the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, misinformation about migrants is increasing globally, undermining social cohesion and causing harm.⁸ In countries where migrants are portrayed as threats, public discourse tends to support more restrictive migration policies and reduced access to essential services, increasing vulnerability.⁹

Existing research, including studies by the Lab, underscores the critical role of information – and misinformation – in shaping migrants’ trust in and access to humanitarian assistance and protection. To address this, communication strategies must ensure that migrants receive clear, relevant and trustworthy information across all stages of their journey – in countries of origin, transit, destination and return. This information must be delivered in ways that reflect migrants’ diverse needs, including language, gender, age and access to technology. Importantly, migrants in the Lab’s research identified family and friends who had previously migrated as their most trusted source of information. This highlights the value of engaging migrant communities and local networks in designing and delivering life-saving information.

In 2023, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) launched a two-year ECHO-funded project to enhance UNHCR and humanitarian partners’ understanding of and responses to misinformation, disinformation and hate speech (MDH) on digital platforms. The project included research, development of tools and guidance, advocacy and three field-based pilots. One of these pilots focused on the Rohingya. Its objectives were to:

1. Improve understanding of how MDH develops, spreads and impacts the protection of Rohingya.

2. Develop an action plan and tools to help UNHCR and partners respond to and mitigate the impacts of MDH targeting Rohingya.

3. Develop a strategy and recommendations for short- and medium-term work, ensuring collaboration with relevant actors and communities.

The pilot aimed to strengthen responses to MDH affecting displaced populations and humanitarian actors. Activities included country-level assessments to identify trends, protection impacts, and key partnerships and advocacy entry points. A regional multistakeholder meeting and follow-up webinar brought together UN agencies, civil society, digital rights organizations, journalists, academics and the private sector to share lessons learned and elaborate potential responses.

The pilot tested a range of responses, including:

• direct advocacy with technology companies to address harmful content and impersonation

• capacity‑building workshops and crisis communications training incorporating MDH and social media risk

• country‑tailored social media listening methodologies

• development of guidance and recommendations for specific incidents and general operational responses.

Regional collaboration and advocacy efforts were key to raising awareness and promoting coordinated responses to MDH targeting Rohingya.

The pilot also benefited from partnerships at global and regional levels, including those strengthened by the Global Refugee Forum Multistakeholder Pledge on Digital Protection. Guided by an advisory group of refugee experts, this initiative now includes 25 pledges from governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.

The pilot itself established new partnerships and built a baseline understanding of MDH trends to inform future analysis. Refugee-led initiatives have demonstrated the value of community-driven responses.

Key lessons from the pilot show that MDH is complex and constantly evolving, requiring flexible and adaptable responses. MDH campaigns can be coordinated or emerge organically. They may be driven by political agendas, financial gain or identity-based narratives. Local context matters – tailored responses informed by real-time monitoring are essential. Linking online and offline insights adds value, but sustained monitoring is resource intensive and most useful if undertaken with the aim of informing programmes and/or tailored advocacy. Integrating MDH strategies into emergency preparedness is increasingly important and more must be done to include forcibly displaced and stateless persons in designing and delivering actions to respond to online information integrity risks.

Across contexts – from the Sahel to Syria – local actors consistently enjoy higher trust and lower hostility in online spaces compared to their international counterparts. In Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger, local NGOs received virtually no negative comments across several months of monitoring, even when addressing sensitive topics such as reproductive health or gender-based violence. This trust is often rooted in perceived cultural alignment, local presence and visibility of known individuals, which often shields them from broader anti-aid or anti-foreign narratives.¹⁰

However, trust alone does not guarantee reach. In the Sahel, local NGOs frequently operate in low-engagement digital environments, limiting their ability to shape public discourse. Posts by local organizations often go unnoticed unless amplified by media or influencers. In some cases, external visibility without narrative control can backfire. For example, when a Burkinabè local NGO initiative on female genital mutilation was featured by a third-party media outlet, it faced backlash that had not occurred when the messaging came directly from the organization itself. Conversely, when female empowerment is promoted by trusted local figures, it can generate positive engagement. For example, Facebook posts by a Burkinabè artist and UNDP Goodwill Ambassador celebrating a women’s vocational training initiative were widely praised and avoided the criticism often directed at content associated with aid agencies.

In 2024, the Goodwill Ambassador posted content supporting UNDP’s role and received only positive comments, in sharp contrast to the general scepticism surrounding UN entities. This demonstrates that trusted messengers can act as a buffer against harmful narratives. Yet, influencer engagement must be strategic and context aware. In June 2025, UNICEF faced backlash following the appointment of a new foreign representative in Burkina Faso, with 85% of user comments expressing suspicion, often invoking sovereignty and anti-imperialist narratives. The stark difference in public sentiment toward local leaders versus institutional figures reflected complex dynamics and it is not always clear how much of the reaction is organic or coordinated.

In Syria, the contrast was similarly pronounced. In the monitored posts, local responders like the White Helmets attracted significantly more positive engagement than UN agencies, which were often criticized for perceived regime bias or bureaucratic distance. Community trust was strongly tied to transparency, visible impact and narrative ownership on social media. When local organizations shared stories of their work and impact, they generated more positive engagement than when UN agencies shared similar content. This suggests that the way content is framed and the messenger’s perceived connection to the community can significantly influence public sentiment.

To strengthen digital resilience, aid actors should invest in amplifying credible local voices, support community content creators and co-produce messaging with those already seen as legitimate. When humanitarian communication is grounded in relationships and proximity, it becomes far more effective in navigating contested digital spaces.

In autumn 2024, the American Red Cross moved swiftly to prepare for and respond to Hurricane Helene as it brought devastation to communities across the south-eastern US and drew global attention.

On-the-ground response efforts were complicated by a surge in online misinformation. False claims circulated alleging the American Red Cross was confiscating donated items, taking over local relief efforts, or absent from affected communities – all untrue. For many people already unsure about where to seek help, these inaccurate claims only deepened uncertainty. To combat confusion, the National Society issued a direct public rebuttal, using a simple social media graphic and a clear statement on its website to set the record straight – providing clarity without amplifying false narratives.

Underlying the communications response was a dual commitment: safeguarding the organization’s reputation through calm and credible messaging, and shaping the public narrative through consistent storytelling that reaffirmed the humanitarian mission.

Social media listening team members tracked sentiment in real time, ensuring the response remained measured and emotionally intelligent. Strategic storytelling reinforced Red Cross operational efforts through media interviews and live updates from affected communities. Rather than stepping back, the American Red Cross leaned into its humanitarian mission.

Even in a hostile online climate, public support remained strong. Donations, volunteer interest and trust indicators held steady – or improved – reflecting the strength of an emotionally anchored, mission-driven supporter base. Years of trusted messaging and credibility helped buffer the organization against viral falsehoods.

The crisis emphasized the need to prepare not only for physical disasters but also for digital misinformation. Like logistical planning before a storm, the National Society continues to monitor online trends and social mentions, address emerging misinformation, deploy proactive storytelling and provide internal guidance to employees and volunteers for awareness and alignment. These efforts aim to safeguard reputation and maintain public trust, especially among younger, digitally native audiences.

This challenge isn’t unique to any one organization. In times of crisis, heightened emotions often fuel distortion. What Hurricane Helene revealed was not just the fragility of public perception, but also the need for intentional, value-driven reputation management.

Helene reaffirmed that rapid, compassionate communication matters. Communities look to the Red Cross not only for help in a crisis, but also for truth when confusion spreads. As misinformation evolves, our guiding principle remains the same: truth must always move faster than doubt or distortion.

The Global Disaster Preparedness Center led a research initiative across 15 locally led projects in 14 countries,²⁹ examining the accessibility and actionability of early warning systems for ‘last mile’ communities – those hardest to reach and most vulnerable due to systemic social and structural challenges.

A consistent finding across contexts – from Brazil to Nepal, Albania to Malawi – was the central role of trust. The research showed that even scientifically accurate forecasts often fail to trigger early action when messages are mistrusted, sources are doubted or the information is confusing or inaccessible. This initiative is notable for centring community voices and documenting not only the barriers to effective early warning, but also practical strategies for building trust and improving the inclusivity and accessibility of early warning systems for underserved groups.

Key Insights

Mistrust and misinformation did not emerge as abstract risks but as some of the most significant barriers to translating early warning into early action. In Brazil’s coastal communities, a lack of clear differentiation between official alerts and misinformation created confusion and undermined confidence in the warnings. Without recognisable formats or clear source attribution, people struggled to verify which messages were credible and what guidance to follow.

Mistrust was particularly strong in areas where communities had repeatedly experienced ‘false alarms’ — warnings not followed by actual hazards. In Odisha, India, this contributed to a ‘cry wolf’ effect, leading many residents to ignore future alerts. Religious fatalism also played a role in eroding trust, with some individuals placing greater faith in divine protection than in institutional warnings. Another study from India highlighted how frequent alerts forced people who rely on daily labour wages to choose between heeding early action warnings or losing income, making trust in alerts especially critical when livelihoods are at stake.

Another common source of mistrust was the use of unclear or overly technical language. Studies from Eswatini, Albania and Nepal showed that early warnings often relied on jargon, unfamiliar terminology or were not translated into local languages. When messages are difficult to understand or feel irrelevant to local realities, they become inaccessible – and trust quickly breaks down.

Trust is a critical factor in whether communities act on early warnings. Addressing gaps in communication and strengthening confidence in official alert systems is essential to ensure that people respond to accurate information, especially when harmful or misleading messages circulate alongside official alerts.

Lessons and solutions

The research confirms that trust is foundational to effective early warning. Several strategies emerged to strengthen trust:

• Leverage trusted messengers : People are more likely to act on alerts delivered by individuals or organizations they know, such as community volunteers, religious leaders, local organizations or friends and family members. Familiarity builds credibility, highlighting the need to involve and train local networks to improve both reach and trust.

• Make messages clear and locally relevant : Alerts should use plain, non‑technical language and be delivered in the local languages or dialects of the target community. Including visuals and culturally familiar references can help people better understand the messages, evaluate their risk and respond appropriately.

• Ensure official information is easily recognisable : Consistent formats, clear source attribution and delivery through trusted channels help communities trust and distinguish official alerts from misinformation. Strengthening digital literacy and working with local media can further reduce confusion and improve trust in risk communications.

• Establish two‑way communication : Communities value feedback loops that allow them to ask questions, report issues and shape future messages. A participatory approach strengthens both trust and responsiveness to early warning systems. When combined with ongoing awareness‑raising efforts and community education, it builds understanding of local risks and how early warning systems work – making people more likely to recognize and act on alerts when it matters most.

In eastern Nepal, formal early warning dissemination channels have struggled to reach remote, disaster-prone communities. As a result, warning messages have not been well-understood, trusted or acted on. To address this gap, the Nepal Red Cross Society, with support from the Finnish Red Cross, has been implementing the Reducing Disaster Impact through Inclusive Preparedness and Anticipatory Action (REDI) project in 15 communities, reaching nearly 65,000 people since 2023.

The project has introduced an inclusive multichannel communication strategy to bridge the information divide. People-centred approaches and diverse communication channels help ensure that everyone receives warning messages in time to react. Protocols have been developed for rapid communication by local government authorities and stakeholders, and sirens are being installed in strategic locations. Nepal Red Cross Society volunteers conduct door-to-door visits and organize information sessions to reach individuals who may be inaccessible via SMS alerts or social media, or who simply prefer face-to-face communication.

Several lessons have emerged on how to enhance early warning systems and build trust. Locally led, inclusive systems are more effective because people see themselves reflected in them. Local knowledge and familiar communication practices provide a strong foundation. During the last monsoon season, for example, upstream communities monitored rainfall and alerted downstream communities to take immediate action, saving lives.

Real-life experiences and community drills have improved awareness of evacuation procedures, safe spaces and individual responsibilities. They have also fostered trust that no one, especially those in vulnerable situations, will be left behind. Addressing urgent needs, such as strengthening irrigation channels and constructing retaining walls, was crucial in establishing initial trust within communities. Ongoing awareness raising on weather forecasts, their limitations and the function of early warning systems remains crucial.

Importantly, people’s mindsets have shifted from reactive to proactive, enabling earlier action based on trusted, localized information and growing confidence in their ability to respond. When a community is cohesive and empowered to drive its own development, people become active agents of resilience. This empowerment spreads across the community, making it safer and more resilient for everyone.

This initiative focused on anticipating misinformation before it spreads by equipping Scottish health officials with the skills to apply social listening insights to their vaccine communication strategies. Through World Health Organization Europe (WHO/Europe)-led training, participants learned how to identify early warning signs, such as rising concerns, shifts in tone and emotionally charged language, and use these insights to design messages that build critical thinking and resistance before misleading claims take root.

Unlike debunking, which is reactive, prebunking is preventive. It prepares audiences to recognize potential misconceptions and question misleading claims before they take hold. In the Scotland training, the focus was on identifying early signals of hesitancy and understanding psychological factors, such as confirmation bias, that make certain narratives more persuasive than others. This proactive, audience-specific messaging was especially important in protecting public trust as human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake was beginning to decline.

WHO/Europe worked with Scotland’s Ministry of Health to train health officials and physicians in the fundamentals of using social listening to inform their outreach. The training helped participants understand what makes misinformation persuasive and how to proactively address vulnerabilities. As a result, participants were better equipped to craft nuanced, evidence-aligned messages that pre-empted doubt among hesitant groups.

Prebunking works best when rooted in real-time insights. By strengthening institutions’ capacity to anticipate and address risks early, this initiative showed how listening-led approaches can build trust, especially where health guidance must evolve with public concerns. It offers a practical, scalable model for embedding resilience in vaccine communication systems.

Medical students and public health specialists in Moldova were brought together to build practical skills for addressing false health claims already circulating in communities. What made it stand out was its real-world application: trained students went door-to-door to speak directly with community members, correcting vaccine myths and sharing accurate information through open conversational dialogue.

This was a clear example of reactive yet responsible correction. Effective debunking is not just about identifying falsehoods, it’s about how you respond. The training focused on clear, evidence-led communication that avoided amplifying myths, instead starting and ending with facts. Participants learned to explain why specific claims were false in ways that maintained trust and reduced confusion. This hands-on, myth-busting approach supported vaccine uptake during a time of multiple, overlapping crises.

The WHO Country Office in Moldova, in collaboration with WHO/Europe, organized the training for 30 participants including medical students, communication professionals and public health experts. After the training, participants engaged in community outreach, addressing people’s concerns directly and offering guidance tailored to local narratives and needs.

Debunking is most effective when it is personal, contextual and trust-based. Training future frontline workers to respond effectively after falsehoods have spread builds long-term institutional capacity. The model is replicable – particularly in contexts where misinformation is already widespread and direct community engagement is possible.

Risk communication, community engagement and infodemic management (RCCE-IM) are central to effective public health emergency management. Mandated by the International Health Regulations, RCCE-IM is a strategic pillar of preparedness and response, influencing how societies navigate crises and protect their most vulnerable populations.

Since 2020, the WHO/Europe has responded to a series of complex emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic, disasters and armed conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, the 2023 earthquake in Türkiye and the mpox outbreak in Central Africa. In every crisis, people’s actions and decisions, shaped by trust and access to information, have been central to achieving improved health outcomes. Public health measures only succeed when communities trust the guidance and the messengers who work with them to co-develop and co-deliver interventions. RCCE-IM helps bridge this gap by meaningfully engaging diverse communities, with a particular focus on those most at risk at each step of preparedness and response. A key development has been the inclusion of infodemic management as a core component of RCCE, monitoring health narratives to identify and counter false information, thereby helping to ensure that people can make informed decisions to protect their health in an emergency.

Core lessons learned

Through numerous health responses, WHO/Europe has identified key lessons on how RCCE-IM improves emergency response and saves lives – insights which can inform capacity-building efforts, including:

1. Embedding and sustaining RCCE‑IM: Effective RCCE‑IM must be institutionally embedded across all phases of emergency management, from prevention and preparedness through to response and recovery. It is a necessary component in preparing for crises and supports response when there is sustained investment in infrastructure, human resources, training and systems by health authorities. Experience during COVID‑19 and earlier crises showed that countries with established, well‑resourced RCCE‑IM teams could act faster, owing to pre‑existing public trust.

2. Multisectoral and community engagement: No single sector holds all the answers in a crisis. RCCE‑IM delivers the greatest impact when it is coordinated across sectors including health, education, civil protection and emergency services – and across all levels of government administration. Collaboration with community members and local stakeholders is also key. Trusted figures include faith leaders, youth advocates, family doctors, community health workers, community‑based groups, civil society organizations (CSOs) and educators. All play an important role. When meaningfully engaged, they can significantly increase reach, credibility and acceptability of messaging, because it is co‑developed with and for the communities they serve. Involving a diverse range of stakeholders ensures that communication efforts are relevant for at‑risk populations and marginalized groups, thus increasing the likelihood of acceptance of official guidance.

3. Evidence‑led, technical approach: RCCE‑IM is an applied discipline that sits at the intersection of public health, risk communication and behavioural and social sciences. Successful interventions are grounded in:

   • ongoing community and social listening to understand evolving concerns and beliefs of different demographics and groups
   • strategies that bridge risk assessment and risk perception
   • operational research, behavioural insights and social science evidence.

By using real-time data and feedback, risk communication strategies can be rapidly adapted to audience needs, changing public health guidance, emerging misinformation and disinformation threats, and barriers to action. Integrating scientific rigour, monitoring and evaluation into RCCE-IM is essential to ensure relevance and effectiveness.

1. Transparency and communicating uncertainty: Trust between health authorities, stakeholders and those it aims to serve is essential. A key determinant is early and transparent communication, even if all information is not yet known. The dynamic, fast‑changing nature of emergencies means that public health advice will evolve as new evidence emerges. Clearly communicating this uncertainty and updating guidance in a timely manner is crucial to maintaining credibility.

2. Two‑way communication and social listening: People are not passive recipients of information, especially in a crisis. They experience anxiety and hold beliefs and attitudes that influence their decisions. Understanding what people think, feel and need is essential to craft messages and responses that resonate and are effective. Mechanisms for real‑time feedback (hotlines, social media, community dialogue – both online and offline) allow for responsive risk communication and rapid false information management. Effective social listening enables authorities to detect false or misleading information early. It enables correction of falsehoods to prebunk information before it can take root and address the issues that matter most to communities.

3. Managing misinformation and disinformation: The scale and speed with which rumours, myths and false information circulate, especially through digital platforms and social media, can rapidly fuel confusion, sow distrust and undermine public health efforts. Infodemic management focuses on the proactive dissemination of accurate, timely public health information rather than only correcting misinformation and disinformation once detected. Multidisciplinary teams which include health authorities, other sectors, local authorities, CSOs, community leaders and key stakeholders must work together to identify and address information gaps. Through regular, tailored messaging and advocacy, these actors can help protect the public from misinformation and reinforce clear, actionable guidance.

Proactive infodemic management involves:

• routine monitoring for viral falsehoods and knowledge gaps

• debunking false information that poses a risk to public health

• prebunking – pre‑emptively addressing likely untrue and/or damaging rumours, and collaborating with trusted influencers and communication channels to disseminate public health advice and updates.

Rumours and misinformation can have serious consequences during epidemics. The spread of unverified, false or inaccurate information about the causes, transmission and prevention of diseases, even when not intentional, can undermine public health messaging and practices – hindering public health response efforts and leading to poorer health outcomes. Over the past decade, the French Red Cross Foundation has supported more than 30 research projects on access to healthcare and epidemic response, both in France and internationally. These include studies on the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Guinea, the plague in Madagascar and COVID-19 in France, the Comoros and Senegal. These studies have generated valuable insights into some of the links between rumours, distrust and resistance to public health guidance provided by humanitarian actors.

The circulation of false narratives, such as claims that viruses are political conspiracies or that preventive measures spread diseases, fuels suspicion and drives public distrust during epidemics. Such harmful narratives can become obstacles to the implementation of public health measures by humanitarian actors and lead to serious outcomes – ranging from refusals of disinfection or vaccination to delayed seeking of treatment, reduced reporting of cases or even attacks on humanitarian personnel. Each of these consequences contributes to the continued spread of diseases. In this context, research shows that locally led and culturally adapted community awareness programmes are key for (re)building trust in epidemics. These programmes are most effective when run by trusted community members and volunteers, co-developed with communities and aligned with local cultural practices.

Drawing on this experience, the French Red Cross Foundation reasserts the importance of both quantitative and qualitative social science research to counter harmful information, support trust in the humanitarian sector and strengthen epidemic preparedness and response programmes. Far from being a luxury, research that is robust, participatory and community based appears essential to detect emerging narratives, inform context‑specific responses and ultimately save lives.