Imagine being held captive for 450 days, deprived of food and water, and denied medical treatment for gunshot wounds sustained when you were taken hostage. And now imagine finding out that the location in which you are being kept belongs to an organization that is, in name, dedicated to providing humanitarian aid.
This was the experience of British-Israeli Emily Damari, who was held in a UNRWA facility in the Gaza Strip after Hamas terrorists kidnapped her from her home on Oct. 7, 2023.
This deeply disturbing use of facilities belonging to a U.N. agency was not an isolated incident; other hostages were and may still be held captive in buildings associated with the United Nations or humanitarian aid organizations. For years, Hamas used these facilities for terror purposes, such as launching rockets at Israeli population centers. And for years, employees connected to Hamas and other designated terror groups have worked for such organizations.
This disturbing reality can serve as an entry point to the Trump administration’s dizzying, and at times bewildering, disruption of the global aid industry. Over the course of two weeks, Trump has frozen U.S. foreign humanitarian assistance for 90 days; withdrawn from the World Health Organization; stopped funding UNRWA; quit the U.N. Human Rights Council; and proposed moving USAID—now an independent government agency—under the U.S. State Department.
Whatever the benefits of U.S. foreign aid—medications, clean water or education—the system, which outsources most aid projects to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide—is very broken. Due to a lack of vetting and transparency, American taxpayer money has made its way via USAID and U.N. agencies to NGOs with connections to terror that support incitement and violence, and wage boycott campaigns against U.S. companies and allies.
Now is a chance to stop the egregious mismanagement of money and create an accountable system to disburse U.S. aid, which makes up just 1% of the federal budget but remains a key tool for advancing American interests and influence around the world.
To have a long-lasting impact, the solutions must extend beyond short-term aid freezes. Such moves can be quickly undone by future administrations or court rulings. Withdrawing from international agencies “opens up a window for China and Russia,” as George Ingram, a former senior USAID official, told NBC News, creating a scenario in which such countries could gain a foothold across Asia and Africa by becoming bigger aid players.
Rather, the United States must put in place a well-defined system to vet aid recipients, holding them and the granting institutions accountable by demanding transparency and requiring regular audits.
Firstly, recipients of governmental funds need to be carefully examined for ties to terror organizations and for engaging in incitement or violence—or having employees or partners that do so. Unfortunately, serious analysis does not happen: For decades, the research institute where I work has documented the flow of money from governments, including that of the United States, to organizations and NGOs that have ties to terrorism and incitement.
USAID has funded Palestinian NGOs with links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a U.S.-recognized foreign terror organization, as well as NGOs that have introduced children to convicted terrorists. For years, the United States was the main funder of UNRWA, with its terror-linked employees and an educational system rife with incitement and antisemitism.
For the most part, the aid industry has escaped scrutiny. There is a working assumption that organizations that claim the mantle of human rights and conduct humanitarian aid projects must be good-faith actors. They are seen as neutral, unaffected by ideology, politics or plain incompetence.
This myth, known as the “halo effect,” is embedded in U.S. aid policy.
This means that U.S-funded aid organizations working overseas are trusted to such a degree that they are not expected to abide by common-sense rules or precautions to ensure that aid does not end up in the wrong hands. For example, U.S. sanctions against the Iranian-backed Houthi terror group in Yemen make exemptions for American-funded aid organizations to make payments to the Houthis if those payments are for administrative fees. Aid groups are also permitted to work with the Houthis to carry out humanitarian projects and distribute aid—something not allowed for businesses or other parties.
Meanwhile, four U.S. service members have been killed in battle with the Houthis, whose missile attacks have also targeted global shipping in the Red Sea.
In Lebanon, where the extremist terror group Hezbollah is trying to reconstitute its military capabilities, the United States has shown blind trust in the benevolent nature of an NGO known as the Norwegian Refugee Council. This powerful international NGO has received American taxpayer money and disburses cash payments, with no evidence of mechanisms in place to ensure that the funds are not being diverted to members of Hezbollah.
The United States should not abandon humanitarian aid altogether. It remains an irreplaceable tool to promote democratic values and strategically advance U.S. foreign-policy goals. But like any other industry, especially well-funded industries, humanitarian aid requires oversight and scrutiny. That must begin now.