UNHCR’s identity has long centred on refugee protection, yet its mandate has become increasingly contested as displacement drivers multiply. Within the organisation, a quiet struggle persists between those defending a narrow, refugee-focused mission and those advocating a broader approach encompassing statelessness, internal displacement, and climate-induced crises. This unresolved divide produces fragmented strategies, inconsistent priorities, and operational paralysis. The Cyclone Idai response in 2019 exemplified these tensions: uncertainty over UNHCR’s role in disaster-related displacement led to hesitant engagement, limited guidance from headquarters, and divergent interpretations of the agency’s responsibilities. Field staff operated in a state of conceptual ambiguity, while headquarters debated the boundaries of their mandate. The case underscores a deeper organisational fragmentation rooted in competing logics of legalism and pragmatism, as well as control and adaptation. Unless UNHCR reconciles these internal tensions and clarifies its evolving role in the humanitarian landscape, it risks eroding both its coherence and its capacity to deliver meaningful protection in an era of complex displacement.