Neutrality is a cornerstone of humanitarian operations, allowing aid workers to negotiate access in politically charged settings. Aid organizations need to be able to successfully signal neutrality. If they are successful, their neutrality needs to be accepted by armed groups, governments, and local communities. In autocracies, neutrality is often compromised when humanitarian actors are perceived as aligned with the regime after being granted access. This creates suspicions among non-state armed groups (NSAGs), increasing the likelihood of attacks on aid workers, as these groups cannot impose administrative restrictions on aid delivery. Conversely, in democracies, state actors are more likely to target aid workers to prevent NSAGs from benefiting from humanitarian aid, which could undermine the regime’s stability. Using novel panel data, I show that the risks aid workers face differ significantly between autocratic and democratic contexts. While neutrality remains essential for access, acceptance of neutrality by one side of the conflict paradoxically compromises the perception of neutrality by the other side.