The inclusion of sexual and gender minorities (SOGI minorities) in humanitarian action has until quite recently been a neglected topic within the humanitarian sector. This paper zeroes in on the growing discussion surrounding this issue by analyzing and problematizing ”non-local” humanitarian actors' advocacy for SOGI inclusive humanitarian efforts in ”SOGI hostile” states. The thesis can be divided into three parts. I firstly account for how four ”non-local” humanitarian actors’ have advocated for SOGI inclusion in humanitarian action in ”SOGI hostile” settings. After this, I problematize the discussed advocacy using postcolonial concepts. I lastly come with suggestions regarding how the identified problems can be remedied. The study has shown that humanitarian actors engage in advocacy for SOGI inclusion in various ways. Some of the actors seem comfortable with directly pushing the idea of SOGI inclusivity onto humanitarian workers in ”SOGI hostile” states, while others take a more relaxed approach. Regarding the problems with the advocacy discussed in the paper I have argued that the advocacy does not take postcolonial concerns into a sufficient account, and that it often seems to be rooted in western understandings of sexuality. One of the actors also appears to undermine the risks that can come with advocating for SOGI inclusion in certain settings. To remedy the mentioned problems I suggest that aspects of a Culturally specific advocacy approach should be implemented when ”non-local” humanitarian actors advocate for SOGI inclusion in ”SOGI hostile” states, since such an approach would consider the impacts of colonialism. I also implore the discussed humanitarian actors to look beyond ”identity-centric” and ”LGBTI-centric” understandings of gender and sexuality. I lastly assert that the advocacy should recognize that inclusion may be unsafe in some contexts.