As 2026 approaches, hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Jordan face the specter of hunger following the United Nations World Food Programme’s announcement that it will cease the food assistance on which they rely to secure their basic needs. While the decision is officially attributed to funding shortages, observers are questioning whether the halt is purely the result of a financial crisis or if it reflects a broader policy aimed at gradually pushing refugees toward forced return and closing the Syrian refugee file without offering fair or safe solutions.
The Nature of the Decision and Its Declared Reasons
The World Food Programme warned, in its report, of the consequences of suspending food assistance for Syrian refugees in Jordan beginning early next year due to a decline in the number of beneficiaries and a funding gap of 258 million dollars.
The program explained that the return of more than 144,000 Syrian refugees from Jordan to Syria between December 2024 and August 2025 contributed to reducing the lists of beneficiaries. Their number fell to about 248,000 in August after nearly 62,000 refugees were removed from the lists.
According to the report, current resources are only sufficient to cover monthly cash assistance until January, while an additional 65 million dollars is needed to secure food programs through the end of 2026.
For his part, UNHCR spokesperson in Jordan, Youssef Taha, said the budget reduction is linked to the decline in registered refugee numbers, stressing that the need remains and that the coming strategy focuses on voluntary return while continuing services for those who remain.
Taha added that the 2025 budget amounted to 372.8 million dollars, but only 115 million had been secured by the end of August, around 31 percent of the total, leaving a funding gap of 257.8 million dollars. This forced the agency to reprioritize in order to sustain support for as many refugees as possible.
By the end of August 2025, the UNHCR had about 506,000 registered refugees in Jordan from various nationalities, of whom 462,000 were Syrians, about 91 percent of the total. Around 18 percent live in Zaatari and Azraq refugee camps, while the rest reside in urban and rural areas.
Read also: The Deep State in the Arab World: How Regimes Survive Revolutions
Humanitarian and Social Implications
In a statement to +963, human rights activist Dima al-Kharabsheh emphasized that the suspension of food assistance would have direct consequences for many refugees, threatening their food security and stability, increasing poverty, and worsening malnutrition.
She continued, “The most affected are children, especially since many families rely primarily on this aid. Socially, the decision will lead to higher rates of school dropouts, child labor, or early marriage, which means an entire generation’s future will be at risk.”
Al-Kharabsheh further noted that the repercussions will not only affect Syrian refugees but also Jordan as a host country, which will face mounting economic and social pressures on already strained communities. This, she argued, would double the crisis.
Syrian journalist and political analyst Nabil Shoufan described the potential consequences as catastrophic. He warned that the funding deficit could lead to drastic cuts or even the termination of cash and food assistance for thousands of families that depend on it as their only source of income, plunging them into severe food insecurity.
Speaking to +963, Shoufan said: “Some families will be forced to reduce their meals, sell their belongings, or withdraw their children from school to work. At the same time, there are reports of reductions in non-cash assistance such as psychosocial, legal, and social support. This signals the beginning of dismantling protection mechanisms in the camps and neighborhoods where refugees live.”
He added that the presence of food and non-food assistance had provided a safety net against gender-based violence and exploitation. Its removal would expose women and children to greater risks of abuse, from harassment and blackmail to forced marriage and human trafficking, concerns previously confirmed by investigative reports following earlier aid cuts.
Shoufan also underlined that the impact will extend to Jordan’s local markets and small businesses, which will lose a significant portion of their customer base, weakening trust between host communities and refugees.
Are There Pressures for “Forced Return”?
This humanitarian crisis raises legitimate questions about possible political motives pushing toward the idea of forced return to Syria, despite the fact that conditions there remain unsafe and unstable for a dignified return.
According to Shoufan, “All this will lead refugees to consider returning to Syria as an option, though largely imposed on them by circumstances. Most rights organizations agree that return is not necessarily safe. Reports confirm that wide areas of Syria remain insecure and lack basic services. Thus, under these conditions, return becomes an almost forced decision driven by economic need.”
He warned that some families facing anxiety, fear, and depression may feel compelled to abandon their safe environment and return to one fraught with risks, eroding refugees’ resilience over time.
Shoufan also noted that host governments, including Jordan, face domestic economic and social pressures pushing them to reduce refugee numbers and ease the strain on public services and budgets.
He added, “But rights groups such as Human Rights Watch have cautioned against what they describe as ‘false voluntary return’ and disguised forced return. This becomes especially concerning when the World Food Programme speaks of reprioritizing and cutting aid to levels that make life in an expensive country like Jordan almost impossible for refugees.”
Shoufan argued that the United Nations appears torn between two approaches: on one hand, its agencies warn of the risks of unsafe mass return, and on the other, its 2026 planning documents allocate funds for organizing and facilitating return.
“This hesitation,” he explained, “raises questions about whether the UN is under political and economic pressure from states that believe other crises are competing for attention and resources.”
For her part, Al-Kharabsheh stressed that separating the humanitarian from the political is nearly impossible. Such decisions, she said, when taken at sensitive times, are usually perceived as indirect pressure on refugees, opening the door to discussions about forced return, which remains a red line under international law.
Read also: The New Umayyads: The Essence of Syrian Nationalism
Alternatives and Closing the Gap
Against this backdrop, and amid growing warnings of an imminent humanitarian catastrophe threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees in Jordan, attention is turning toward possible alternatives that could mitigate the crisis and prevent families from slipping deeper into poverty and food insecurity.
Al-Kharabsheh explained, “No single actor can fill the gap left by the World Food Programme. The Jordanian government alone cannot bear the burden, as it already suffers from a budget deficit and mounting economic pressures. Its ability to compensate for the loss of international aid is very limited.”
She emphasized that donor states must reprioritize funding and commit to supporting refugees, while international and regional organizations should expand alternative programs such as cash transfers and direct support. Local communities and the private sector also have a role to play in bridging the gap.
The human rights activist concluded by stressing that the only genuine alternative is “effective international pressure to ensure the humanitarian file of Syrian refugees remains on the table, and that it does not become a political bargaining chip.”
