**Forecasting Humanitarian Risk in 2026
Compound Insecurity, Human Suffering, and the Consequences of a World That Stops Learning**
Dr. Isaiah (Ike) Wilson III
Executive Summary
The International Rescue Committee’s 2026 Emergency Watchlist is often read as a catalog of crises. But that framing understates what it truly represents. It is not merely a list of places where people are suffering.
It is a map of where the international system has failed to integrate whole populations into any durable order—political, economic, or security-related.
Seen through the General Theory of Compound Security (GToCS), the Watchlist marks the edges of a world that has stopped learning. These are not peripheral problems.
They are structural gaps—zones where legitimacy has collapsed, feedback no longer works, and adaptation has given way to survival.
U.S. foreign policy—especially under a second Trump administration pursuing America First transactionalism—is not separate from this picture. It is part of the system dynamics that produced it. When powerful actors disengage, dismiss, or reduce entire societies to bargaining chips, they do not shrink the problem set.
They stabilize disorder.
The return of ISIS activity in recent months and single-digit years is not an anomaly. It is a warning flare. It tells us what happens when entire regions are allowed to become permanent non-integrated gaps—spaces that are governed by violence, identity, and despair because nothing else is allowed to take root.
There is an uncomfortable pattern that emerges when the IRC Watchlist is laid alongside recent U.S. policy history.
Many—though not all—of the twenty-plus countries now identified as facing the gravest humanitarian risk in 2026 overlap strikingly with the countries subject to U.S. visa bans, travel restrictions, or blanket denials under the Trump administration. Several are also the same places once dismissed in coarse shorthand as “shithole countries.”
This overlap is often treated as coincidence. Under the General Theory of Compound Security, it should instead be read as correlation with causal implications.
Language, policy, and legitimacy are not separate domains in compound systems. They are mutually reinforcing feedback loops. When entire societies are rhetorically downgraded and procedurally excluded, they are not merely stigmatized—they are structurally de-integrated.
The Watchlist, in this sense, reads like a downstream ledger of upstream abandonment.
I. The Watchlist as a Ledger of Human Lives
It is easy to talk about humanitarian risk in abstract terms: displacement figures, food insecurity indices, funding shortfalls. But those numbers are shorthand for something far more intimate.
In Sudan, parents no longer ask whether their children will attend school next year. They ask whether they will eat tomorrow. In Gaza, families have learned the sound of incoming strikes well enough to distinguish them from generators or aircraft overhead. In eastern Congo, childhood ends early—not with ceremony, but with recruitment, flight, or hunger.
What binds these experiences together is not just violence or poverty. It is the loss of expectation.
People no longer believe that institutions—local or international—will respond in ways that change their fate. That belief, once gone, is extraordinarily difficult to restore.
GToCS treats this moment not as moral collapse, but as system failure made visible through human suffering.
For the people living in these places, U.S. visa denials are not abstract policy instruments. They are felt as doors closing—sometimes literally, sometimes symbolically—on education, family reunification, medical treatment, and economic escape.
When entire populations are categorized as threats rather than partners, signals travel fast. Parents stop believing their children have futures elsewhere. Young people stop imagining lawful mobility. Communities internalize exclusion as permanence.
From a GToCS perspective, this matters profoundly. Legitimacy is not only domestic; it is relational. When the world’s most powerful democracy treats certain societies as beyond redemption, legitimacy drains not only from those states—but from the international order itself.
What appears as border control upstream registers as expectation collapse downstream.
II. Compound Security Failure, Lived Daily
At its heart, the General Theory of Compound Security asks whether systems under stress can still do three things:
Listen
Learn
Adapt
In most Watchlist countries, all three have broken down—not suddenly, but over years.
Listening Without Responding
Communities still speak. Aid workers still report. Journalists still document. But decision-making centers—national and international—have grown numb. Information circulates without consequence.
This is not ignorance. It is feedback fatigue.
When warnings accumulate without response, people stop issuing them. They adapt privately instead—by fleeing, joining armed groups, or disengaging from public life altogether.
Learning Too Slowly
Compound systems do not fail because they are shocked once. They fail because they learn too slowly in the face of repeated stress.
Each missed opportunity to stabilize a fragile system raises the cost of the next intervention. Each delay hardens mistrust. Eventually, adaptation gives way to resignation.
This is how humanitarian crises become permanent.
III. Permanent Non-Integrated Gaps: The Most Dangerous Condition
One of the most important—and least discussed—features of today’s global order is the emergence of permanent non-integrated gaps.
These are regions that are:
Not meaningfully governed
Not economically integrated
Not politically represented
Not securely connected to any legitimate order
They exist in a liminal state: inside the international system in name, outside it in practice.
From a GToCS perspective, these gaps are not benign. They are incubators of systemic blowback.
Permanent non-integrated gaps do not arise accidentally. They are produced—often slowly, often quietly—through repeated acts of exclusion.
Travel bans, visa denials, and rhetorical degradation do more than restrict movement. They lock regions into isolation loops, where mobility, opportunity, and feedback with the global system are systematically narrowed.
Many of the countries on the Watchlist have experienced exactly this: reduced diplomatic engagement, reduced people-to-people exchange, reduced development investment, and reduced political patience from the international community—particularly from the United States.
Under GToCS, this is the textbook pathway by which a stressed system slides from fragility into structural abandonment.
The gap becomes self-reinforcing. Isolation breeds instability; instability justifies further isolation.
IV. ISIS as a Warning Indicator, Not a Relic
The re-emergence of ISIS activity in recent months and single-digit years should be understood precisely this way—not as a revival of a defeated enemy, but as evidence that the underlying system never healed.
ISIS thrives where:
Legitimacy collapsed but was never restored
Governance was destroyed but never replaced
Populations were liberated militarily but abandoned politically
In other words, ISIS reappears where integration failed.
The group does not need mass support. It needs only:
A surplus of alienated young men
Persistent insecurity
The absence of credible authority
The memory of abandonment
These conditions are not created by ideology alone. They are produced by compound neglect.
Every time a region is treated as expendable—too hard, too broken, too distant—the system plants the seeds for its own future shock.
ISIS did not emerge from nowhere—and it does not re-emerge randomly.
Its revival in recent months and single-digit years is most visible precisely in regions that have been written off, walled off, and rhetorically dismissed.
Where legitimate pathways out are closed—migration, education, lawful employment—illegitimate pathways in gain appeal. Extremist movements exploit not ideology alone, but humiliation, immobility, and exclusion.
When countries are simultaneously:
On humanitarian watchlists,
On visa-ban lists,
And in the rhetorical crosshairs of great powers,
they become ideal recruitment terrain—not because their people are predisposed to violence, but because the system has denied them integration.
ISIS is not the cause of this failure. It is the symptom—and the warning flare.
V. America First as a Structural Force, Not a Preference
Under GToCS, U.S. foreign policy choices are not merely preferences. They are structural inputs into the global system.
America First transactionalism accelerates gap formation in three ways:
It signals impermanence
When commitments are conditional and revocable, local actors hedge. Trust erodes faster.It fragments responsibility
Multilateral burden-sharing collapses into bilateral bargaining, weakening redundancy.It normalizes abandonment
When suffering is framed as someone else’s problem—or worse, as a character flaw—legitimacy drains rapidly.
In compound systems, abandonment is never neutral. It compounds.
America First transactionalism, when combined with exclusionary migration policy and dismissive language, operates as a compound stressor.
It does not merely withdraw resources. It withdraws recognition.
In compound systems, recognition matters. Being seen as worthy of engagement sustains legitimacy. Being labeled disposable accelerates legitimacy loss.
The countries most affected by U.S. humanitarian retrenchment are often the same countries most restricted in terms of mobility, visas, and diplomatic access. This convergence sends a clear signal: you are on the outside, and you will remain there.
GToCS predicts what follows: feedback collapse, adaptive failure, and eventual blowback.
VI. The Myth of Distance and the Reality of Blowback
America First rests on an illusion: that distance equals insulation.
GToCS demonstrates the opposite. In tightly coupled systems, distance delays impact—it does not prevent it.
Non-integrated gaps export instability:
Through migration
Through extremist networks
Through pandemics
Through regional wars
Through economic shock
ISIS is only the most visible expression of this dynamic. It is the canary in the compound coal mine.
Visa bans and travel restrictions are often justified as tools of distance—ways to keep instability “over there.”
But compound systems do not respect such boundaries.
Distance delays consequences; it does not erase them. And when entire regions are locked into non-integration, the consequences arrive not as isolated incidents, but as cascades: displacement, radicalization, disease, and conflict.
The Watchlist countries are not far away because of geography. They are far away because policy has made them so.
That distance is illusory—and temporary.
VII. Humanitarian Action as System Repair
Humanitarian aid is often described as relief. Under GToCS, it is better understood as repair work.
It:
Buys time for legitimacy to recover
Keeps feedback channels open
Prevents total fragmentation
Preserves the possibility of reintegration
When humanitarian systems are dismantled or defunded, what follows is not efficiency. It is irreversibility.
Collapsed systems are far harder—and far costlier—to rebuild than to stabilize early.
Epilogue Is Our Prologue: The World We Are Choosing
The IRC Watchlist does not ask us to imagine a dystopian future. It shows us the trajectory we are already on.
ISIS’s return is not a failure of counterterrorism. It is a failure of integration.
Mass displacement is not an accident. It is a rational response to abandoned systems.
If the United States continues to pursue a beggar-thy-neighbor, transactional path—treating whole regions as disposable—then the future is not uncertain. It is structurally predictable.
Compound systems do not forgive neglect. They record it—and return it with interest.
The question before us is not whether humanitarian crises will shape global security. They already do.
The question is whether we will continue to learn after the warning indicators are flashing, or only after the costs arrive at our own door.
In the compound age, survival belongs not to the strongest, but to those who refuse to leave large parts of humanity outside the system altogether.
There is a final irony worth confronting.
The same places dismissed as “shithole countries,” restricted through visa bans, and sidelined through transactional disengagement are now the places the international community is scrambling to stabilize—often at far greater cost, and with far fewer tools.
What was once a matter of dignity and inclusion becomes, belatedly, a matter of emergency response.
History, in compound systems, does not repeat—it accumulates.
If the United States continues to define large portions of the world primarily by exclusion—who cannot enter, who does not matter, who is beyond investment—then the Watchlist of 2026 will look modest by comparison to what follows.
In the compound age, there are no “shithole countries.” There are only systems we integrate and systems we abandon.
And abandoned systems never stay quiet forever.
If you value this work, here are three ways you can step into the story with us:
📰 Subscriber (Free)
Stay informed. Receive every new essay, briefing, and analysis straight to your inbox. Join a growing community committed to civic resilience and national security.
🎧 Supporter (Paid Pledge)
Strengthen the signal. Your support sustains both Compound Security, Unlocked and our companion podcast The Civic Brief. Supporters ensure these conversations remain accessible to the wider public while elevating the quality, depth, and reach of the work.
🛡️ Sustainer (Patron Level)
Invest in the mission. Sustainers fuel new research, convenings, and storytelling that enlarge the civic frame of security. This is more than content — it’s a civic project. Your sponsorship helps preserve an independent voice committed to equipping citizens, leaders, and institutions for the compound challenges ahead.