You have written extensively about the violence and displacement that the Rohingya have endured. For example, over a million Rohingya refugees remain in Bangladesh today. You wrote in May of 2025 that the new Bangladeshi government emerging from the "Gen-Z Revolution" seemed more open to addressing Rohingya needs. How would you characterize Bangladesh's response in recent months in terms of humanitarian coordination, international engagement, and efforts to support refugees? 

I traveled to the camps in Bangladesh earlier this year with one of our refugee fellows, who is a resettled Rohingya refugee. She was born in the Rakhine State in Myanmar, and when the genocide started, she fled to Bangladesh. She lived there for several years and now is based in the US. She wanted to go back to see how things are, and was the first Rohingya resettled refugee to go back to the camps. In our report about this, called “A Closing Window,” we observed that the interim government is much more open and willing to have positive policies towards the Rohingya. However, we could see that the window was closing; and now, it's very close to being shut, given a lot of unpredictability with next year’s elections in Bangladesh. Nonetheless, there were efforts by the government to allow some kind of representation in the camps.

While a heavy focus often falls on Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands of refugees reside in Malaysia, India, Indonesia, and other nearby nations. What are the challenges that the greater Rohingya refugee community faces, and how have these other nations addressed the crisis?

There are some things that are in common that I saw when I visited Rohingya refugees in Malaysia, Thailand, and India. One of the common things is that many Rohingya fled from Myanmar by sea, and we learn from those who made it to shore about those who were sinking. There hasn’t been a concerted effort for a search-and-rescue from the countries around there. Also, there has been a lack of rights, identification cards, and official status for the Rohingya in a lot of these countries. So that limits their ability to access education or formal work opportunities. They are also at risk of being detained arbitrarily. That’s a huge issue in India, where many Rohingya are taken in and languish in detention centers. Even worse, we’ve seen some cases where they have been forcibly returned to Myanmar even as the persecution of the Rohingya continues. The biggest fear is that of arbitrary detention or being forced to go back.

Reports have described the repatriation process to Rakhine State as an extremely challenging process, amid worsening tensions between the Rohingya people, Rohingya armed groups, and the Arakan Army. Do you view large-scale repatriation as feasible at this point, and what role do international actors play in facilitating some form of safe return?

Repatriation at this point is not safe, is not feasible, and is very unlikely to be voluntary. There is still significant fighting between the Arakan Army and some of the Rohingya militant groups, along with extensive airstrikes by the Myanmar military junta. There was some hope for productive dialogue between the new interim Bangladeshi government and the Arakan Army, such that the safe return of the Rohingya could be facilitated.  Unfortunately, these plans have not gone forward. However, there must be a path to repatriation in the future. Nearly all of the Rohingya refugees want to go back as soon as it is safe to do so, as long as they have guarantees regarding their human rights and safety.

A path towards a safe repatriation must involve dialogue and confidence-building measures from the political wing of the Arakan Army. One way that they can demonstrate this is by showing that the Rohingya who are displaced within areas currently under their control are able to safely return to their villages. Having refugee leaders from the Bangladeshi camps visit and confirm the safety of these repatriations would also significantly improve confidence in this arrangement. Also, there must be some kind of accountability mechanism. Many members of the Arakan Army have committed abuses and atrocities against the Rohingya population. That must be addressed and prevented in some way before any repatriation can begin. Finally, the Rohingya want an international presence and monitoring efforts involved in the repatriation process to provide guarantees that they will not be abused or displaced once again.

How is the Rohingya humanitarian response currently funded and supported? To what extent are the nations hosting refugees contributing relative to international NGOs?

In a word, insufficiently. Over the past eight years since the genocide began, the United States has been the leading contributor to the humanitarian response. That has largely been cut off with the latest aid cuts and the dismantling of USAID. Other nations, such as the United Kingdom, have followed suit in reducing aid spending. In recent years, the UN, NGOs, and the Bangladeshi Government have requested a total of around 800 to 900 million dollars to support humanitarian efforts. In response to aid cuts, the total amount funded to date is just around 450 million dollars, 48 percent of what is needed. This massive funding cut has a very real impact. The World Food Program recently announced that it did not have funding and was going to cut its monthly rations in half. Such ration cuts have historically resulted in significant spikes in malnutrition. This September, the United States and other nations made commitments that temporarily helped stave off those ration cuts. But early next year, the aid may lapse once more. Finding sufficient and consistent funding for the Rohingya is going to be very challenging going forward.

What has been the impact of reduced US funding, particularly from USAID?

USAID effectively no longer exists. Quantifying the implications goes well beyond just the dollar amounts that were lost. When the cuts were first announced, many of the health sectors that served the Rohingya were shut down or limited to only emergency treatments. They no longer have access to any chronic disease treatment or prevention. Hundreds of thousands of people lost access to the already limited medical care and services that they had. There also remains a high risk of ration cuts, which would lead to a significant increase in malnutrition. The effects of the USAID cuts were very real and very severe.

You have written extensively about the crisis in Sudan. The humanitarian situation has been catastrophic, with famine-like conditions and widespread displacement. What are the main barriers to effective humanitarian access and aid distribution? Who are the actors who need to step in to fill the gaps left by major funding reductions?

The main challenges for humanitarian aid distribution in Sudan are funding and access, both of which are severely lacking. The International Organization for Migration and the World Food Program published statements about how the humanitarian response in North Darfur is ready to collapse. Food must be shipped from thousands of miles away, and warehouses are sitting empty. Distributing aid across political lines is extremely challenging. The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) controls Northern and Eastern Sudan, and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) controls the West and the South. It is very challenging for UN agencies and NGOs to get the necessary permissions to cross these political lines to deliver food. Even if permission is granted, local groups may not be fully aware of or heed government orders. People also take advantage of the situation to loot aid trucks. Additionally, RSF authorities have caused issues by not allowing food to enter some of their territory at all. In Al Fashir, a city in North Darfur, there was a siege for over 500 days. People there are facing famine-levels of hunger without access to aid.

The challenging part of solving this crisis is that there are numerous external actors. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran back the SAF. The primary backer of the RSF is the UAE. There has been investigative reporting showing that the UAE is supplying weapons to the RSF, which is responsible for genocide. It is necessary to pressure the UAE to stop providing weapons and to use its leverage with the RSF to stop the fighting and bring them to the negotiating table. The United States also has a key role to play. They are part of the “Quad”, along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. While this group has published some good statements, we have yet to see real progress towards a humanitarian truce on the ground.