Many states have responded to the 2011-2015 Syrian refugee crisis by labeling Syrians as security threats, linking refugees with involvement in civil war and threats of terrorism. By approaching refugee crises as a national security issue, states can justify restrictive refugee policies that prevent refugees from accessing aid or basic services. This paper evaluates Jordan as a case study to examine the impacts of securitized refugee policies on aid agencies’ ability to promote human security. In Jordan, a state hosting a high number of refugees relative to its population, INGOs and the UNHCR have a complex role in formulating refugee policy, where state securitization directly intervenes with their work. Responding to literature about conflicting priorities and policy dilemmas for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), this paper identifies specific instances of conflicting norms that arise for UNHCR and other refugee protection INGOs as a result of securitized refugee policies. Based on interviews with UNHCR and INGO policy officials conducted in 2016 and other primary sources, it examines dilemmas in refugee policy with regard to refugees living with Jordan and their rights and access to services. Secondly, this paper evaluates aid agencies’ response and advocacy around the “berm,” Jordan’s border with Syria where thousands of refugees live without access to aid. This paper shows that state securitization of refugees negatively impacts refugee protection and suggests that the resulting human insecurity has consequences for national security and stability. Finally, it argues that a human security approach could allow UNHCR and aid agencies to advocate more effectively, and that refugee protection and security (holistically understood) are complementary rather than conflicting concepts.