This chapter focuses on the shift required for the humanitarian sector to move from treating information as a support function to recognizing it as a core component of resilience. Governments, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the broader humanitarian sector and wider society all have a role to play in strengthening resilience to harmful information. It draws lessons from the sector’s evolution – from the top-down communication models that once dominated humanitarian action, through the period 2005–2015 when information began to be recognized as a form of aid in itself and participatory approaches such as community engagement and accountability¹ took root. These developments reflected an important commitment to more inclusive, transparent and accountable humanitarian action, yet they emerged at a time when the information ecosystem posed far fewer risks. Today, growing distrust, disillusionment, polarization and the increasingly complex operating environments shaped by harmful information have generated a new kind of crisis – one that strikes at the foundations of humanitarian action: an information crisis.

As UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned in Our Common Agenda , “disinformation is an existential threat to humanity,”² particularly when it undermines established scientific facts and erodes the social contract.

Over the past decade, the information landscape has undergone seismic change. The humanitarian sector now operates in an environment marked by eroding trust, the rapid spread of harmful information and increasingly polarized public attitudes. Trust – long the bedrock of humanitarian action – is under unprecedented strain, not only from harmful information but also a broader collapse in shared facts and institutional credibility, compounded in 2025 by an abrupt need for a humanitarian ‘renewal’ or ‘reset’ triggered by unprecedented deep funding cuts.

Harmful information during emergencies from the COVID-19 pandemic to inter- and intra-state armed conflicts and other humanitarian crises has exposed the vulnerability of both communities and humanitarian organizations. It exploits cognitive shortcuts, such as familiarity bias (the tendency to trust information that is frequently repeated) and availability bias (the tendency to favour emotionally charged or easily recalled narratives). These biases become especially potent in times of crises, when trustworthy and accurate information is most needed but least accessible.

As the saying goes, ‘It takes only a moment to spread a rumour, but a lifetime to refute it.’ The cost of refuting rumours is completely mismatched with that of spreading them. Moreover, there’s nothing we can do about some ordinary people – sometimes they are more willing to believe false information than the truth. This is a harsh reality.”

In digital spaces and connected offline spaces, the boundary between fact and falsehood has become dangerously blurred. The widespread availability of information online and the ease of expressing and amplifying opinions has created a “virtual world of information and misinformation cohabiting side by side … one who will help you and the other who will hurt you”.³ The digital domain itself is far from neutral. As the authors of LikeWar observe, the internet has become a contested space – a modern battlefield, where harmful information is wielded as a tool of influence, power and control: “Battle on the internet is continuous, the battlefield is contiguous, and the information that it produces is contagious”.⁴

Tactics such as creation of false content, doxing (see Annex I: Glossary, on page 353), smear campaigns and coordinated harassment are increasingly used to silence, discredit and destabilize organizations, while deepening confusion, distrust and division among audiences. Harmful information erodes trust and misrepresents humanitarian action. The consequences are serious: they threaten staff and volunteer safety, community confidence and humanitarian access, challenging the ability to respond effectively to people in need.

New tools and platforms have lowered barriers to participation, but trust and safety in these digital spaces remain fragile, especially where harmful information spreads faster than verification and moderation systems can keep pace. Algorithms and digital platform dynamics amplify polarizing content, pushing users into echo chambers that reinforce harmful narratives and undermine humanitarian principles. The consequences are operational and immediate: reduced acceptance, increased hostility and limited access to vulnerable populations.

The rise of AI adds a new layer of complexity. AI can now generate credible convincing harmful information at scale – in visual, audio and text form, manipulate public opinion and enhance cyberattacks. Once the domain of a few highly resourced states and private actors, AI is now widely accessible, largely driven by rapid private sector innovation. This shift has lowered the threshold for malicious use, enabling the large-scale creation and spread of harmful content. AI technologies are already being used to manipulate public opinion, deepen societal divisions and erode institutional trust. In humanitarian contexts, this raises important concerns around the protection of affected populations, the integrity of information environments and the responsible use of digital tools in crisis response.⁵ AI also amplifies the potential for targeted exploitation. It can automate the identification of high-value individuals or vulnerable groups, increase the precision of cyberattacks and leverage large datasets to exploit people financially or psychologically. It also enables the production of deepfakes and synthetic narratives that distort public discourse and undermine informed decision-making. These capabilities present urgent challenges for humanitarian organizations, not only for community safety, data governance and digital risk management, but also for the ability to operate within polarized information environments. The responsible use of digital tools and AI – together with appropriate safeguards – is essential to maintaining the accessibility, reliability and trustworthiness of information and supporting principled humanitarian action.

The ‘MICE framework’ – standing for money, ideology, coercion (or compromise) and ego – has traditionally been used in intelligence and security studies to explain why individuals engage in espionage or other harmful acts. When applied to the information environment, it helps explain why individuals, groups and state actors create and spread harmful information. Today’s digital spaces add further motivation including status, revenge and attention-seeking, which can drive both personal and organizational behaviour. For political and state actors, these dynamics often play out at a larger scale: ideology may advance political or strategic agendas; coercion and compromise can shape the actions of allied groups or populations; ego and status can drive the projection of influence domestically or internationally; and revenge or attention-seeking can be used to destabilize opponents or dominate media narratives. Altogether, these factors show that the spread of harmful information is rarely accidental – it is often guided by clear incentives and pressures, whether at the individual, organizational or state level.

Understanding these motivations is critical for humanitarian actors, as it informs strategies to protect staff, volunteers and communities, maintain trust, counter harmful narratives and mitigate challenges to principled access and response in complex information environments. Practical counter-strategies should be tailored to the specific drivers of harmful information while also identifying opportunities for engagement and collaboration with states, technology platforms and other stakeholders, since some measures extend beyond those that humanitarian actors can or should implement. Examples include disrupting financial incentives for criminal actors, providing alternative narratives and engagement pathways to counter ideology or status-driven spread, and establishing accountability mechanisms. Recognizing this spectrum of motivations strengthens the ability of humanitarian, policy and other actors to anticipate and respond effectively to harmful information in complex, high-stakes environments.

Importantly, harmful information rarely exists in isolation. It often amplifies the impact of other crises, intensifying the effects of geopolitical conflicts, climate-related and other emergencies. The World Economic Forum has identified this convergence of risks as a defining feature of today’s global risk landscape,⁶ posing urgent questions for the humanitarian sector about how to adapt, respond and engage effectively.

In this fragmented landscape, trust in traditional sources of information has sharply declined. Society is increasingly replacing expert knowledge with personal belief, peer experience and influence-driven narratives – a trend described as the ‘ death of expertise’ (Nichols, 2017). People now tend to trust ‘people like me’ – meaning individuals they perceive as similar to themselves in experience, values or identity – rather than relying on experts or institutions . According to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer,⁷ trust is becoming increasingly hyper-local, while media and social media continue to rank among the least trusted institutions in a range of countries. Alarmingly, two-thirds of people report difficulty distinguishing reliable news from disinformation. While NGOs are still viewed as ethical leaders, especially among populations with high levels of grievance, even this trust is beginning to erode.

As social theorist Niklas Luhmann noted, trust reduces complexity and enables action in uncertainty.⁸ In an environment where harmful information spreads rapidly, sustaining trust, credibility and connection is central to protecting humanitarian space , ensuring access, and maintaining the effectiveness of principled humanitarian action.

In this context, any humanitarian reset or renewal must prioritize not only explaining the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence but also rebuilding both understanding of the impact and effectiveness of humanitarian action and trust in a world where credibility, access and legitimacy are seriously challenged. Understanding the impact of harmful information is essential for building an evidence base that informs policy interventions, strengthens operational strategies and guides effective risk strategies and responses. Addressing harmful information is not peripheral – it is central to safeguarding humanitarian space, protecting affected populations and ensuring humanitarian action remains possible.

8.1 Why connection matters in humanitarian response

For humanitarian actors, truth and trust are not abstract ideals – they are essential for effective, principled action. Without trust, access can be denied, staff and volunteers face greater risks and affected communities may miss vital support. In today’s digital environment, attention is the battleground, and stories – not just facts – shape perception. Building meaningful connections with communities is now as important as conveying accurate information. Messages must be culturally relevant, resonant and accessible across multiple languages and formats, while facilitating two-way engagement through listening, feedback and dialogue.

In a digital landscape where attention spans are measured in seconds, storytelling must be instant, visual and memorable. Simplicity matters, but so does resonance: narratives must connect to cultural frames and lived realities, allowing audiences to relate to people in need. This shift requires humanitarian organizations to ensure more than one-way broadcasting of information (one to all), to building relationships, facilitating true two-way communication through listening, multilingual engagement, moderation and feedback loops⁹.

Social media has made information-sharing participatory: people no longer just consume stories – they shape and amplify them, often in real time and with an audience. In this environment, responding with the nuance and care that humanitarian principles demand becomes increasingly difficult, yet no less essential. The concept of ‘community’ in humanitarian response has also expanded and blurred. It no longer refers solely to affected populations, field-based stakeholders and donors. Today, it includes policymakers, digital influencers, diaspora networks and global publics – often all at once. As a result, the traditional model of ‘one message to many’, which persists, is likely to land where the boundaries of who is listening – and who is reshaping and amplifying the message – are increasingly unclear. Humanitarian organizations are not only trying to inform, but also to influence, engage and retain the trust of multiple, overlapping audiences, each with different expectations and varying proximity to different crises. Responding effectively means not only knowing what to say, but also understanding who is hearing it, how they are interpreting it, and what they might do with it.

The challenge, then, goes beyond managing harmful content. It is about restoring and maintaining credibility, connection and trust in an increasingly volatile information environment. Yet, most humanitarian organizations lack the structures and resources for continuous, localized dialogue in real time. Those who fail to adapt, whether through hesitation, fragmentation, caution or inertia, risk being left behind. Institutions unable to communicate their story clearly or to respond effectively when harmful narratives take hold lose relevance and public trust.

8.2 What’s ahead? Evolutions and known unknowns

Trust in institutions will likely continue to decline. People increasingly rely on influencers, peer networks and local intermediaries to judge credibility. For humanitarian organizations, credibility will hinge on the ability to engage through these trusted channels, rather than solely on institutional identity. At the same time, gaps in local journalism and media deserts leave communities vulnerable, reducing access to reliable information and amplifying harmful narratives. Strengthening the information ecosystem requires investment in local media capacity, journalism and community-based mechanisms.

Harmful information will increasingly spread in closed, encrypted and algorithmically governed spaces such as WhatsApp, Telegram and social media platforms. These spaces make detection more difficult, but they also offer opportunities for peer-to-peer communication during crises. At the same time, algorithmic moderation and ranking systems can amplify or suppress humanitarian voices, shaping what information people see and highlighting the need for transparency, safeguards and investment by technology platforms, policy-makers and in local media. Further research is still needed to understand the impacts of harmful information on humanitarian operations and on the people they aim to assist and protect.

What is certain is that the information environment will continue to evolve, including the growing use of AI in military operations. It will likely become more volatile, localized and shaped by technology, with AI a defining factor. The rise of AI adds both opportunities and risks. On one hand, generative AI (see Annex I: Glossary, on page 353) is likely to supercharge harmful information – enabling the scaling of the production of convincing deepfakes, synthetic voices and hyper-targeted narratives that can spread faster than verification systems can respond. It also offers tools for translation, fact-checking and multilingual communication when applied responsibly. The development of agentic AI – systems capable of autonomous decision-making, long-term goal pursuit and multi-step task execution – introduces a new phase in the harmful information ecosystem. Unlike current generative models that largely respond to prompts, agentic AI systems can plan, adapt and act strategically in ways that may accelerate the creation, targeting and amplification of harmful narratives. Humanized AI – such as companion bots – risks eroding trust in real human interaction. As AI systems increasingly emulate human traits and communication styles, they risk eroding the intrinsic value of human judgement and interaction. Meanwhile, the deliberate humanization of AI in design – particularly in the form of companion bots and emotionally responsive systems that elicit sentiment, feelings and projections – may further blur boundaries and subtly shape or manipulate human behaviour.

The future of harmful information and cognitive manipulation – meaning increasingly subtle, data-driven techniques that influence how people think, feel or make decisions without their full awareness – will likely involve highly personalized, AI-enabled tactics that blur the line between persuasion and deception, making stronger societal, technological and regulatory safeguards essential to protect public trust and cognitive autonomy.

In humanitarian crises, the humanization of AI, by mimicking empathy, care or authority, may undermine trust in genuine human interaction at a time when it is most vital. Crisis-affected populations could begin to attribute human-like intentions or credibility to AI systems, projecting emotions and dependencies onto tools that are not capable of moral judgement or accountability. Such systems may also manipulate sentiment in vulnerable populations. For example, a companion bot that ‘comforts’ individuals could be exploited to spread harmful information, distort perceptions of humanitarian actors or redirect trust away from legitimate support channels. In fragile contexts marked by trauma, displacement or social fracture, this can deepen confusion, exacerbate mistrust and escalate harm. Moreover, the illusion of empathy created by humanized AI risks devaluing authentic human connection in crisis response. Humanitarian aid relies not only on material assistance but also on empathy, dignity, compassion and trust-building. If affected communities experience AI-mediated interactions as substitutes for real human engagement, the intrinsic value of human-to-human solidarity may be eroded, weakening the relational foundations of humanitarian action.

On the other hand, AI also brings opportunities: new tools for fact-checking, content provenance and translation, for example, providing multilingual crisis communication. In highly resource-constrained crises, these systems might help bridge gaps – provided they are transparent, well-regulated and carefully integrated into existing humanitarian services. Overall, the challenge lies in ensuring that AI supports rather than replaces human care, reinforcing rather than weakening the trust and solidarity on which humanitarian action depends.

AI holds potential for humanitarian action, but there is a growing risk that cost-driven, unregulated use could harm vulnerable communities. Building a Responsible Humanitarian Approach: The ICRC’s Policy on Artificial Intelligence¹⁰ provides an overarching framework to guide the organization’s exploration and use of AI in ways that align with its humanitarian mission and principles. The SAFE AI project,¹¹ led by CDAC Network, The Alan Turing Institute and Humanitarian AI Advisory, with support from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, aims to create practical standards, tools and community-driven frameworks to ensure AI is used responsibly and ethically in humanitarian settings. Monitoring the impact of AI on crisis-affected populations will be essential to ensure that its use remains safe, effective and principled.

The state’s central role in defining and enforcing the boundaries of legitimate information control and response¹² may be reinforced. Regulation and governance related to harmful information remain fragmented. Some frameworks, like the European Union’s Digital Services Act (2024), require major platforms to assess and mitigate systemic risks such as disinformation and to provide transparency on content moderation. Other regulations may restrict freedom of expression or civic space, for example, laws which criminalize vaguely defined ‘false information’.

Global norms on responsible behaviour in cyberspace, including discussions at the UN Open-ended working group on information communication technologies (ICTs) and its successor the Global Mechanism on Developments in the Field of ICTs in the Context of International Security and Advancing Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of ICTs, should provide a forum to address harmful information deployed through cyber means. This would mirror what was achieved with the protection of critical infrastructure and the explicit references to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic.¹³

The UN Security Council Resolution 2730 (2024) on the protection of humanitarian and UN personnel is an important step toward safeguarding humanitarian action – and a foundation that must be built upon. It calls on member states to take appropriate action to address the increasing threat of disinformation campaigns and misinformation that undermine trust in the UN and humanitarian organizations and put humanitarian personnel at risk. Building on this, global cyber governance forums offer a further opportunity to advance calls for greater protections for humanitarian organizations against harmful information deployed through cyber means. The objective is to ensure that digital threats do not compromise access, safety or principled humanitarian action. Voluntary initiatives like the UN Global Principles for Information Integrity seek to establish shared norms for states, platforms and civil society, but their implementation remains voluntary.

In short, the information environment ahead will be more sophisticated, pervasive, deeply embedded in daily life and locally fragmented. The key question is whether humanitarian organizations can collaborate and build the resilience to withstand and counter these pressures; and crucially, whether they can move quickly enough to adapt – embedding harmful information analysis, investing in information and media literacy, community engagement and trust-building as a central element of humanitarian action.

8.3Defining humanitarian resilience in the information age

In the context of harmful information, humanitarian resilience means far more than managing reputational risk. It is the capacity to anticipate, absorb and adapt to information threats – while remaining grounded in humanitarian principles and accountable to affected communities. In an era where digital platforms and algorithmic tools can amplify falsehoods at scale, reactive communication strategies are no longer sufficient.

A truly resilient approach begins with an understanding of harm, not just to organizations, but to communities. Although research remains limited, recent initiatives are shedding light on the damaging effects of harm including at the local level. For example, work by Grand Challenges Canada, Fondation Hirondelle and Internews has highlighted serious consequences: incitement to violence through social media, erosion of social cohesion and deepening mistrust of humanitarian actors.

Research from the University of Melbourne on disinformation during disasters further focuses on how false narratives can fragment communities and inflame tensions, especially in fragile or polarized contexts. Its City Playbook for Countering Disinformation underscores the importance of local, context-specific community-led responses that prioritize community trust, civil society engagement and early detection and prevention.¹⁵

To address these harms, humanitarian organizations must go beyond ad hoc responses. This includes investing in systems that monitor digital threats, assess the impact of interventions and identify structural triggers and vulnerabilities that allow harmful information to spread. Central to this is community engagement: local actors are not only the first to be affected but often the best positioned to create and sustain effective solutions.

Building resilience requires understanding the information ecosystem and how people access information and their needs, creating space for feedback, building surge capacity to respond to information crises, supporting digital and information literacy and embedding simulations and anticipatory tools into preparedness planning. It also demands a willingness to confront legitimate criticism with transparency and humility, recognizing that trust is not built through messaging alone, but through sustained, principled and impactful humanitarian action.

The following pages showcase examples from different organizations, illustrating how they are confronting harmful information in practice and the lessons that can help guide the wider humanitarian sector.

8.4Trust brokers – the human bridge to credibility

Access to trusted information depends not only on what is communicated – the message – but also on who delivers the message – the messenger. In the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, local staff and volunteers will increasingly serve as the ‘trust brokers’: individuals who play a vital intermediary role in building, maintaining and restoring trust between communities and organizations. Trust brokers help translate institutional intent into locally meaningful terms, bridge gaps in power, knowledge and access and vouch for the credibility of both information and actors. Their effectiveness lies in being perceived as independent, culturally grounded and aligned with community needs. As members of the communities they serve, they are uniquely positioned to navigate sensitive dynamics, defuse tensions and foster dialogue.

In contexts marked by harmful information or low institutional trust, trust brokers often form the first and most credible line of communication . Supporting them with timely, accurate messaging, digital access and tools, and clear guidance is essential – not only to counter harmful information but to sustain humanitarian access and reinforce the legitimacy of humanitarian action.

A sustainable presence depends not only on continuity on the ground but on trusted relationships, principled engagement and the ability to adapt to evolving community needs over time.

Humanitarian organizations have a duty of care toward their staff and volunteers to help them cope with the personal and professional impact of harmful information. Exposure to online harassment and harmful information can cause stress, reputational risk and moral distress. Providing psychosocial support, digital safety training and clear organizational guidance is essential to safeguard their well-being and maintain operational effectiveness.

Who are the influencers in and on the humanitarian sector?

• Volunteers and frontline staff : Often the true bridge to communities, they are the most trusted voices because they are embedded locally, speak the language(s) and share lived realities.

• Affected communities : Displaced people, refugees and disaster survivors often become influencers by sharing lived experiences that reframe global perceptions.

• Humanitarian organization leadership : Leadership figures in international organizations and NGOs shape highlevel narratives, policy influence and donor agendas. However, they are currently less visible.

• States are among the most powerful influencers through funding, legislation, public messaging and control over access. Their endorsement can safeguard humanitarian space, while their rhetoric or laws can just as easily shrink it. States shape narratives, and they can amplify principled humanitarian action and trust or fuel harmful information that delegitimizes organizations and stigmatizes affected communities.

• Local authorities and officials play a critical role in shaping perceptions of humanitarian action. Their statements, policies and engagement with communities can either enable or constrain access, influence trust and affect the safety of humanitarian personnel.

• Community leaders and faithbased actors : They command local trust and legitimacy and their endorsement can make or break acceptance of humanitarian action.

• Media and journalists : They play a major role in shaping public understanding of crises and humanitarian needs.

• Digital influencers : Increasingly, popular online voices (YouTubers, TikTokers, diaspora bloggers) can spread humanitarian narratives far faster than official channels.

Does the humanitarian sector ‘need’ influencers? Yes, for reach and resonance: in a crowded information ecosystem, humanitarian organizations cannot rely only on institutional voices. Influencers – whether local, digital or community-based – help amplify messages, contextualize them and connect them with people’s values and concerns. But selectively: not all influencers align with humanitarian principles thus due diligence is required to avoid co-optation, politicization or loss of neutrality. They can provide:

• Scale : Influencers can rapidly reach audiences that humanitarian agencies struggle to access.

• Localization : Community or local leaders can ensure information is trusted and culturally and contextually relevant.

• Storytelling : Personal voices can humanize crises, fostering empathy and solidarity in ways official reports cannot.

• Countering harmful information : Influencers can debunk rumours or redirect harmful narratives.

However, there are risks to neutrality and impartiality, of over-reliance and of undermining authenticity or exploiting humanitarian messages for profit. The humanitarian sector may need influencers, but it must approach them differently than consumer brands – prioritizing trust, impartiality and long-term community relationships over reach at any cost.

8.5Humanitarian principles as a compass

The humanitarian principles rely on trust, credibility and clarity of purpose: qualities that can be drowned out in noisy, emotionally charged environments. In a world where perceived authenticity is the currency of influence , humanitarian organizations must not only communicate in principled ways but also visibly align their messaging with their actions. The risk is not only that falsehoods outpace facts, but that neutrality, impartiality and independence are misunderstood – or worse, mistrusted – when they fail to align with the prevailing emotional or political narratives of the moment. Humanitarian principles are not only a moral compass but also a vital operational safeguard. The principles serve a dual purpose:

• aspirational : reaffirming the humanitarian ideal to alleviate suffering, protect dignity and assist solely on the basis of need

• practical : providing a tested framework for maintaining access, navigating contested environments and sustaining trust.

To remain effective, the principles must be actively demonstrated: visible in how principled humanitarian actors engage, how they listen and how they respond. Upholding humanity today means countering dehumanizing narratives, reinforcing dignity through action and communicating with clarity, humility and consistency. Ultimately, principled humanitarian action in the digital age demands more than operational competence. It requires widespread ethical clarity, collective discipline and the courage to resist expedient or reactive narratives. In a world shaped by emotional velocity and harmful information, the humanitarian principles are more than a moral compass – they are a critical operational safeguard and one of the last defences against the erosion of trust, access and the humanitarian space.

An emotionally reactive information ecosystem threatens the very conditions on which principled humanitarian action depends – dialogue, trust and space for reasoned engagement . In today’s volatile information environment, humanitarian communication is rarely perceived as a neutral act. When handled poorly, it can cross red lines – amplifying harmful narratives, oversimplifying complex realities or becoming co-opted for political or ideological ends. Humanitarian actors face a delicate balance: maintaining transparency while safeguarding operations and security, and upholding neutrality without appearing detached or indifferent. This tension is most pronounced in contexts where trust has already been eroded. In such environments, even accurate and well-intentioned communication can be met with scepticism, suspicion or outright hostility.

In response, the sector must reaffirm the humanitarian principles not only as a compass, but as a practical framework for navigating contested information spaces. Humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence are not abstract ideals; they are operational standards, demonstrated through consistent action and credible engagement. In fractured environments, visibly adhering to these principles needs to be reinforced, especially when harmful narratives seek to politicize or delegitimize humanitarian action.

At the same time, the broader information economy is increasingly emotion driven. Surprise, anger and disgust dominate digital platforms, amplified by algorithms and now by AI. Tactical interventions such as digital ‘circuit-breakers’ and sentiment-based analysis show promise in interrupting the viral spread of emotionally charged harmful information.¹⁸ These measures aim to protect the public sphere by slowing virality, not silencing dissent.

8.6Recommendations for resilience

Building resilience against harmful information and safeguarding principled humanitarian action requires more than isolated interventions. It demands a coordinated, values-driven roadmap embedded across humanitarian diplomacy, community engagement and accountability, safer access initiatives, programme design, preparedness, risk management and communication strategies. The following eight pillars offer actionable steps across short-, medium- and longer-term horizons.

8.6.1Trust as a strategic asset

Trust is central to humanitarian action – supporting access, operational effectiveness, delivery and legitimacy. Harmful information seldom creates mistrust in humanitarian action on its own: it amplifies existing tensions, inconsistencies and perceived shortcomings. Trust is not static or binary. It exists on a spectrum shaped by cultural experience, power dynamics and exposure to harmful narratives. It evolves along a continuum: tell me → show me → prove it → keep proving it. At each stage of this continuum, trust can be weakened or strengthened, but never assumed; in humanitarian crises, it must be continually earned and safeguarded against the risks and corrosive effects of harmful information.

The messenger matters: volunteers, local staff and local leaders often serve as trust brokers. Supporting them to share accurate, timely and accessible information builds credibility from the ground up. Engagement and community information networks are central to resilience and to reduce the vacuum in which harmful information thrives. Leadership accountability and principled consistency across humanitarian organizations and operations are non-negotiable. People assess institutions not only by what they say, but by what they do and whether the two align.

Two dimensions of trust are critical:

• Operational trust, grounded in presence and (human) proximity in interactions with affected communities, authorities, armed actors, media and peers. This trust must be personal and embodied: every staff member and volunteer must carry the organization’s humanitarian integrity in their behaviour, grounded in principles, standards and professionalism.

• Institutional trust , built through principled behaviour, ethical conduct, accountability and regulatory compliance so that stakeholders believe the organization’s stewardship, competence, effectiveness and values.

Action points

• Short term : Strengthen internal messaging and training that emphasize trustbuilding behaviours and responsibilities of individuals as ambassadors of principled humanitarian action. Map trusted community and authority figures (e.g., chiefs, religious leaders, elders) and include them in credibility chains; formalize partnerships to coverify and disseminate information.

• Medium term : Monitor and analyse community perceptions of trust linked to the operational environment (not only reputation) and impact of harmful information. (The IFRC’s Community Trust Index could be extended to measure harmful information.)

• Long term : Integrate trustbased performance metrics that capture both relational and technical dimensions of humanitarian action. Institutionalize multilayered trust networks as part of preparedness and accountability systems.

8.6.2‘Right-touch’ compliance in a digital age

Accountability in the information space is essential to sustaining trust and legitimacy in humanitarian action. Humanitarian organizations must apply the same standards of transparency, responsibility and protection to their communication as in their operations – verifying information, mitigating against harmful content and addressing unintended impacts. Feedback mechanisms should enable communities to question and influence how information about them is used.

Humanitarian actors should promote norms and accountability across the information ecosystem – engaging with stakeholders from technology, media and states to uphold humanitarian principles and protect people in need from harm.

While strong compliance systems support credibility and accountability, excessive bureaucracy and overly rigid procedures can erode trust, add unnecessary burden and weaken the human proximity that is central to humanitarian action. A ‘right-touch’ (i.e., striking the right balance) approach balances safeguards with flexibility, ensuring compliance reinforces – not replaces – principled and ethical judgement and humanitarian integrity.

States and other donors can support right-touch compliance by promoting due diligence that reinforces ethical judgement and humanitarian integrity, rather than imposing overly rigid procedures that slow responses or erode trust. Flexible frameworks ensure accountability while enabling principled, timely decision-making in complex operational and information environments.

Action point

• Continuous : Support compliance approaches that balance accountability with flexibility, enabling humanitarian actors to exercise principled and anticipatory decisionmaking.

8.6.3Informational and digital literacy and capacities

Effective responses to harmful information require confidence and competence in navigating the information ecosystem and digital space, supported by strong internal capacities, technology access, strategic partnerships and shared standards. This shifts the focus from countering individual messages to understanding broader dynamics of how information is created, shared and trusted within communities, while emphasizing local media ecosystems, social trust and inclusive access to reliable information.

Staff and volunteers should be equipped to navigate digital environments responsibly, recognize emerging threats and engage constructively. Collaborative partnerships with technology actors, civil society and media organizations help promote safe and principled digital practices and advocate for accountability where harm occurs. Community-based digital literacy should be viewed as a protection strategy – empowering people to assess, challenge and contextualize information. Coordination across the Movement and with external actors is essential to share insights, align standards and amplify principled voices, as no single actor can address this challenge alone.

Co-creation with communities ensures they are active partners, not merely recipients, in shaping credible, context-appropriate responses. This approach considers five pillars: the message (content and framing), the medium (channels of transmission), the audience , the actors creating and circulating information, and the impact on people and systems.

In a post-truth era, staying principled is both an ethical and operational necessity, and digital literacy and access are core enablers of trust and risk management.

Information and digital literacy and access are now core enablers of trust and risk management. Limited literacy, especially at decision-making levels, undermines the ability to anticipate and respond effectively to harmful information. Without the skills, support and infrastructure to navigate today’s complex digital information environment, even the most principled strategies risk being reactive rather than anticipatory.

Action points

• Short term : Integrate digital literacy, access and harmful information considerations into programme planning tools, risk matrices and community engagement strategies.

• Medium term : Establish crossfunctional teams to design anticipatory strategies and preemptive messaging, and to embed digital monitoring skills.

• Long term : Promote sectorwide dialogue to align standards, share insights and amplify trustbased approaches to communication and engagement, backed by sustained investment in information and digital literacy and inclusive access.

8.6.4Embed risk management in core systems

Risk assessments should address not only physical and reputational risks but also trust-related vulnerabilities, including perception gaps, harmful narratives and community backlash. Humanitarian diplomacy must reaffirm the relevance of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence, especially in contested environments.

Actions points

• Short term : Integrate trust and harmful information management and monitoring into risk frameworks and preparedness planning. Invest in systematic audience research, combining digital tools with inperson engagement to ensure diverse perspectives shape humanitarian engagement and communication strategies.

• Medium term : Establish crossfunctional teams to design anticipatory strategies to address potential information risks before they escalate and coordinate principled, preemptive messaging.

• Long term : Ensure sector and systemwide dialogue to align standards, share insights and amplify trustbased approaches to humanitarian risk frameworks.

8.6.5Anticipation and integrated response strategies

A proactive response begins with anticipation and foresight. Humanitarian actors must invest in tools and practices that help them understand and anticipate harmful information, not just react to it. This includes scenario planning, risk mapping and early warning systems to help identify potential sources, narratives and impacts on access, trust and safety. Understanding triggers and enablers – such as grievances, power dynamics and moments of societal stress – supports more targeted preparedness and response. Frameworks like the ABCDE²⁰ approach can help map actors, messages, distribution mechanisms and effects, though they require analytical capacity and timely data access.

Anticipatory strategies must be community led or guided, locally relevant and adaptive to evolving digital threats.

Resilience demands more than reaction: it requires offensive, defensive and integrated proactive strategies connected in a cycle of protection and influence.

Actions points

• Short term – defensive: Rapid factchecking, crisis communication, quiet corrections and escalation protocols. Develop standard operating procedures for safe use of rumourtracking and verification platforms. Deploy twoway communication systems (SMS, voice, radio callins) for immediate rumour verification. Set up a sectorwide crisis communication taskforce on harmful information and rapid informationsharing protocols on harmful information in risk assessments and cluster mechanisms.

• Medium term – offensive : Prebunking, strategic storytelling, valuesbased campaigns, partnerships with local influencers and community cocreation. Train staff and volunteers on digital security and establish incident reporting protocols for platform misuse. Embed anticipatory messaging protocols into crisis communication plans to preempt harmful narratives.

• Long term – integrated : Link rapid response to narrative shaping, embed realtime monitoring and coordinate crossfunctional teams so defensive and offensive approaches reinforce each other. Embed digital safeguarding and secure communication standards into organizational policies and donor frameworks. Scale and systematize realtime, twoway verification platforms as core infrastructure for community resilience.

8.6.6Information diplomacy and norm setting

Addressing harmful information requires more than technical fixes – it also demands dialogue, restraint and shared norms. Just as ceasefire agreements limit the use of physical weapons, harmful information diplomacy seeks to create voluntary guardrails around the instrumentalization of information. This complements existing humanitarian and peacebuilding efforts by preventing escalation, fostering trust and creating space for principled humanitarian action.

Action points

• Short term : Facilitate offline dialogue mechanisms where conflict parties acknowledge the risks of harmful information and agree to red lines or voluntary codes of conduct. Use these as confidencebuilding measures in peace and mediation processes. Build awareness that ICT networks form part of critical civilian infrastructure and are protected under international humanitarian law. Advocacy efforts include awareness of connectivity gaps that disproportionately affect marginalized groups, including women, displaced persons and people with disabilities, who rely on communication networks for safety, services and participation.

• Medium term : Support the development and monitoring of voluntary codes of conduct for digital behaviour in weakly regulated contexts backed by civil society oversight and early engagement with platforms. Advocate for states to recognize ICT restoration in reconstruction plans and include digital access in humanitarian negotiations. Integrate digital safety and harmful information safeguards into all emergency connectivity responses.

• Long term : Strengthen local ownership of digital norms by ensuring communities most affected by harmful information are central to shaping, demanding and defending standards for responsible digital and offline behaviour.

8.6.7Policy and governance for information resilience

Policy gaps remain a barrier to systematic action. While tools exist, most organizations lack dedicated harmful information policies and safeguarding standards for digital engagement. Escalation frameworks for harmful information, protocols for volunteer and staff protection, and standardized understanding of harms and impacts are urgently needed.

Action points

• Short term: Develop organizational harmful information policies with clear procedures for prevention, escalation and response. Identify and document impacts and harms through a standard taxonomy or framework of harms.

• Medium term : Establish safeguarding and risk mitigation standards for digital engagement, including data protection and safe use of SMS and rumourtracking platforms. Encourage media outlets to adopt transparent charters on AI use, ensuring audiences understand how content is generated or assisted by technology.

• Long term : Adopt and institutionalize a harmonized harmful information impact measurement framework aligned with broader humanitarian indicators.

8.6.8Research, evidence and partnerships

Harmful information is borderless and adaptive; tackling it requires evidence, innovation and collaboration. At present, most humanitarian actors document incidents only anecdotally or as part of broader communication or access challenges. This leaves significant gaps in evidence: the human, social and operational impacts and harms²¹ of harmful information remain under-measured compared to physical damage to lives, infrastructure or livelihoods. Without this evidence base, policy responses risk being reactive, fragmented or misaligned with humanitarian principles.

Greater investment is therefore needed in research, tools and partnerships that strengthen resilience at scale. Evidence turns anecdote into accountability. A robust understanding of the impacts of different forms of harmful information enables more effective advocacy with states, regulators and platforms, and helps ensure that humanitarian concerns are embedded in emerging governance frameworks. It also strengthens internal accountability by ensuring responses are data driven, anticipatory and principled.

Action points

• Short term : Map existing incident reporting systems across the sector and align them with harmful information categories (e.g., emblem misuse). Establish rapid reporting channels that capture not only what content spreads, but how it affects safety, access and community trust. Develop and share a crosssector toolkit for humanitarian responders, including templates for countermessaging, local risk assessments and training curricula on harmful information. Document and share evidence of its impacts and unintended positive outcomes. Provide thematic training for journalists on issues frequently targeted by harmful information, complementing core journalism standards. Ensure systematic engagement with local media and journalism.

• Medium term : Develop shared metrics to quantify the impact of harmful information on humanitarian outcomes (e.g., delays in aid delivery, reduced health service uptake, safety incidents). Pilot integration of harmful information indicators into needs assessments, early warning systems and programme evaluations. Invest in research and evidence on harmful information as a humanitarian risk, including its impact on trust, behaviour and access. Identify and pilot sustainable funding models for collaboration on monitoring, verification and moderation systems, including crosssector partnerships.

• Long term : Institutionalize a global evidence base for harmful information, feeding into humanitarian diplomacy and policy advocacy. This could include an interagency repository of cases, impact studies and lessons learned to inform regulation, funding support and norms on information integrity. Build multistakeholder partnerships with states, platforms, media actors and community influencers to ensure approaches are locally grounded but globally coordinated. Develop measurement frameworks that capture cobenefits (e.g., peacebuilding) alongside humanitarian outcomes.

8.7Prerequisites and crosscutting enablers

Building resilience to harmful information depends not only on trust, compliance, policy and partnerships but also on a set of enabling conditions that determine whether recommendations translate into practice. Three enablers stand out:

8.7.1Crisis communication preparedness

Effective responses to harmful information depend on preparedness before a crisis hits with established crisis communication structures with clear roles, escalation protocols and links to staff and volunteers. Regular environmental scanning and decision-making frameworks (when to engage publicly, prioritizing internal communication) ensure rapid, coordinated responses that balance transparency with risk management.

In today’s complex information environment, communication is not merely a support function – it is a critical enabler of principled humanitarian action. Moving from reactive to strategic communication enables actors to shape the information environment through transparency, inclusion and dialogue – reinforcing trust and community resilience. Strategic and context-sensitive communication helps to safeguard humanitarian space, sustain access and build trust with communities. When grounded in sound analysis and principled practice, it can prevent the escalation of tensions and reduce harm through effective message framing, audience engagement and dialogue. The aim is to promote alternative narratives, enhance community resilience to harmful information and foster information and media literacy. This goes beyond just correcting falsehoods and aims to change behaviours.

This requires an understanding of local drivers and triggers of harm, as well as investing in trusted, locally anchored engagement. Volunteers, including digital volunteers, can serve as early responders in the information ecosystem to detect and respond to emerging narratives, offering scalable, community-based interventions. This requires solid engagement, internal communication and support. Mapping influencers and narrative dynamics can build understanding of who shapes opinion in specific contexts and how that influence can be used constructively in support of humanitarian response.

Timely, inclusive and principled communication is essential. While information is not water or shelter, it often determines how – and whether – those needs are met and the basis on which people make decisions.

8.7.2Standardized tools and frameworks

Fragmented responses increase vulnerability. Information Resilience or Information Integrity Toolkits (e.g., Movement Safer Access Framework (being updated), UNHCR Information Integrity Toolkit (2025),²² ICRC Framework²³ (2025), IFRC Organizational Capacity Assessment and Certification²⁴ ) demonstrate how structured resources can provide a common approach to prevention, detection, escalation and response. Standardized, adaptable tools which could be socialized cross-sector and with digital rights groups, academia and the private sector to help humanitarians act faster and more consistently across contexts.

8.7.3Resourcing and professionalizing RCCE

Risk communication and community engagement (RCCE) is not just an add-on service for responses to disasters and emergencies – it enables and drives community-centred and evidence-informed responses by placing the needs, feedback and realities of communities at the forefront.

In times of crisis, RCCE has proven to be not just a tool but a lifeline to protect the health and well-being of communities. Placing the needs, feedback and realities of communities at the forefront of responses strengthens accountability, improves public confidence in response efforts and minimizes the impact of risks on the lives, livelihoods and well-being of those affected. Failing to integrate RCCE and wider community protection technical areas from the outset of a response contributes to miscommunication, mistrust, poor compliance with public health guidance – all of which ultimately lead to a slower and less effective response.

RCCE capacities must be embedded and invested in as a foundational element of disaster and emergency preparedness, so that the systems, capacities and expertise can be leveraged when crisis strikes. This includes:

• Trained, multidisciplinary teams capable of collecting, analysing and applying social science evidence and feedback in real time.

• Proactive community partnerships that build trust, foster cocreation of solutions and ensure marginalized voices are heard.

• Robust feedback loops so that community concerns and insights are systematically captured, analysed and visibly acted upon.

By institutionalizing these elements, responses move from being reactive to systematic, evidence-driven and locally anchored, ultimately strengthening both the effectiveness and legitimacy of emergency response.

Without these enablers, the eight roadmap pillars risk being applied unevenly or only after harm is done. With them, humanitarian actors can move from fragmented, reactive responses to system-wide resilience: prepared, equipped and embedded in communities before, during and after crises.

8.7.4Harnessing influence for humanitarian resilience

Resilience to harmful information depends on enabling trusted voices to carry principled narratives. Volunteers and frontline staff remain the strongest enablers, embedded in communities and building trust locally. Community leaders, youth networks, etc. amplify this trust and diaspora groups extend influence across borders. Independent media and journalists provide credibility through accurate reporting, and digital influencers and activists offer reach into fragmented digital spaces, though with risks for neutrality. Above all, technology platforms act as ‘meta-influencers’, shaping which voices are amplified or suppressed. Advocacy for transparency and rights-respecting governance are vital.

Ultimately, it is trust, not reach, that turns influence into resilience, safeguarding humanitarian space and ensuring that communities can act on accurate information.

The IFRC’s Community Trust Index offers an evidence-based framework to measure, track and enhance trust between humanitarian organizations and the communities they serve. It assesses community perceptions across two dimensions: competence (technical skills, effectiveness, relevance) and values (integrity, transparency, participation) while also identifying enablers and barriers to trust in areas such as early warning systems, climate resilience, migration and public health. Other organizations and governments could adopt or adapt the index to generate structured, standardized data that complements real-time community feedback. This combination provides a reliable baseline and trend analysis to inform strategic decision-making.

Looking ahead, the Community Trust Index could be further strengthened by integrating targeted focus on harmful information. Doing so would allow organizations to: track the spread and impact of rumours systematically, identify community segments most affected, and bridge qualitative feedback with quantitative insights. By evolving in this way, the index can help anticipate challenges and co-create tailored solutions with communities. Ultimately, the Community Trust Index is then more than a measurement tool – it is a call to action. By diagnosing trust gaps and empowering communities as partners, it equips organizations to rebuild and sustain trust well beyond crises.

8.7.5Systemic support needs

Expertise and experiences highlight that addressing harmful information cannot rely on isolated projects or short-term fixes. Sustained resilience requires system-level investment, coordination and safeguards. Several gaps stand out:

• Technical and analytical tools : Humanitarian actors need the ability to monitor both online and offline spaces, supported by data visualization, narrative and rumour trend mapping and predictive analytics to anticipate harmful narratives before they spread.

• Monitoring and evaluation frameworks : Impact must be measured not only in outputs (e.g., messages delivered) but also in behavioural shifts, perception change and trust dynamics at community level.

• Security protocols: Dedicated standards are needed for secure data handling and staff safety in contexts where armed groups or political actors monitor or exploit information systems.

• Sustainable financing : Rumourtracking and verification systems are resourceintensive. Without multiyear, flexible donor support, community capacity and infrastructure cannot be maintained or scaled. There is real potential for crosssector collaboration to benefit from economies of scale.

• Policy and coordination guidance : Clear roles, standards and escalation pathways are required within humanitarian coordination mechanisms to avoid fragmented or reactive responses.

• Integration of local media: Community radio stations and local journalists should be actively engaged as frontline responders to harmful information, coproducing and distributing trusted, localized countermessages.

• Digital inclusion and platform accountability : Platforms must adapt their tools to humanitarian realities, providing lowbandwidth, multilingual and locally contextualized solutions while ensuring transparency and safeguards.

• Ecosystemwide literacy : Media and rumour literacy should be extended beyond technical staff to volunteers, health workers, teachers and community members, embedding resilience across whole populations.

• Anticipatory systems : Predictive modelling and prebunking strategies – delivered via SMS, posters or radio ahead of flashpoints such as elections or vaccination drives – can reduce the space for harmful rumours to take hold.

Together, these support needs point to a critical shift: from isolated interventions to systemic resilience, where humanitarian actors, governments, donors, platforms and communities co-invest in shared infrastructure for trustworthy information.

Conclusion: Together, we can uphold and reclaim space for humanity

Trust is not assured; it is built, reinforced and renewed. In the face of harmful information, it remains the most powerful safeguard for humanitarian space. By investing in trust, embedding right-touch compliance, addressing policy gaps and advancing evidence-based partnerships, the humanitarian sector can shift from reactive counter-narratives toward systemic resilience.

Harmful information cannot be addressed piecemeal. Building resilience requires trust at the centre, compliance that enables rather than obstructs, integrated risk management, stronger policies, deeper evidence and partnerships – and above all, proactive strategies that connect defensive and offensive efforts. Silence and delay carry their own dangers; early, transparent and trusted communication and engagement is the most powerful safeguard for humanitarian space. Governments need to act to preserve this humanitarian space.

The humanitarian sector cannot afford to cede the information space. While the speed, scale and sophistication of harmful information poses significant challenges, disengagement is not a viable option. To maintain access, credibility and principled impact, humanitarian actors must engage deliberately grounded in the humanitarian principles, supported by collaboration and partnerships, and informed by a clear understanding of the social dynamics shaping today’s contested narratives.

Reclaiming narrative space requires more than correcting harmful information. It calls for a reframing of communication as connection, rooted in listening, empathy, proximity, humility and consistency. It also requires organizations to understand how harmful information spreads and why people believe or accept it, addressing not just the content of falsehoods but the emotions, fears and identities that give them power.

In times of crisis, harmful information thrives by reducing complex realities into simplistic explanations and easily identifiable enemies. Principled humanitarian action must not only speak truth, it must also understand fear, identity and belonging. In this fragmented, emotionally charged landscape, reclaiming narrative space is not about controlling the story. It is about restoring trust, rebuilding connection and reasserting the relevance of humanitarian principles and action in the eyes of affected communities and the broader public. Governments have an important role in this regard to reinforce the importance of principled humanitarian action and preserving the space for humanitarian organizations to operate.

The Movement’s Resolution on Tolerance offers a valuable foundation to reinvigorate efforts against harmful information – reminding us that respect, diversity and non-discrimination are not abstract ideals but practical tools to reduce polarization, counter dehumanizing narratives and preserve humanitarian space. Tolerance online also has its limits: “what is often framed as a fight over speech is actually a fight over reach” (DiResta²⁵ ) – the algorithmic amplification that determines which voices are elevated, repeated and made unavoidable. The humanitarian sector must advocate for changes that reduce the reach of hate speech and malicious content that imperil humanitarian action and endanger staff, volunteers and crisis-affected populations.

The scale of the challenge may feel overwhelming, but it need not paralyse us. By acting collectively – rooted in principles, grounded in trust and united across communities, states, platforms and humanitarian organizations – the sector can move forward with courage and clarity.

The intersection of resilience, principled communication and institutional credibility is now a critical arena for action. Humanitarian actors must shift from a defensive posture to proactive, adaptive and systematic approaches that prepare for and mitigate the impact of harmful information, particularly where it threatens access, undermines trust or endangers lives. Delivering this requires a cross-functional approach in collaboration with communities. The right to information is contested, but in humanitarian crises, the need to know elevates information to a core element of response.

Together, we can uphold and reclaim space for humanity.

Endnotes