The Controversy Surrounding the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
A recent internal review by USAID has raised significant concerns about the operations of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), a U.S.-backed organization tasked with delivering aid to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Just days before the State Department announced a $30 million funding grant, the assessment highlighted critical flaws in GHF’s ability to protect and deliver essential supplies to those in need.
The 14-page document obtained by CNN outlines numerous issues with GHF’s funding application, including a lack of detailed planning, potential risks in distributing baby formula in areas without clean water, and an overall absence of operational clarity. According to the report, USAID officials were not convinced that GHF could meet the necessary standards for effective aid distribution.
A Questionable Funding Decision
Despite these concerns, the State Department proceeded to approve the $30 million grant, raising questions about the decision-making process. Sources familiar with the matter revealed that top political appointees, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and foreign assistance official Jeremy Lewin, pushed for the approval to be fast-tracked. This move came despite internal warnings from USAID staff about the risks associated with working with GHF.
An internal memo dated June 24, four days after the assessment was completed, suggested that some officials believed the humanitarian and political urgency of GHF’s operations justified waiving standard criteria. This decision was made under the leadership of the Elon Musk-backed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which had installed key figures into government roles.
Unanswered Questions and Ongoing Concerns
The USAID assessment identified several missing elements in GHF’s application, including a comprehensive risk management plan and details on how the organization would ensure that aid reached its intended recipients. The report also pointed out inconsistencies in the budget and timelines, as well as a lack of specific plans to address safety and accountability.
One of the most alarming aspects of the assessment was the concern over the distribution of powdered baby formula in areas lacking clean water. USAID warned that this could lead to serious health risks for infants, emphasizing the need for sterilized or boiled water to prepare the formula safely.
International Criticism and Local Reactions
The controversy surrounding GHF has drawn international attention, with over 240 NGOs calling for an immediate end to the group’s operations. These organizations argue that the current situation in Gaza leaves Palestinians with no choice but to either starve or risk their lives to access food.
The group’s head resigned before operations began in late May, citing concerns over the organization’s adherence to humanitarian principles. Despite this, GHF continues to operate with the support of armed American security contractors working alongside the Israel Defense Forces.
The Role of Political Pressure
Political pressure appears to have played a significant role in the approval of the funding. State Department officials have consistently defended GHF, claiming it is a results-focused alternative to a broken aid system. They have also accused critics of engaging in “bureaucratic turf wars” and emphasized the importance of providing aid without empowering Hamas.
However, the internal review suggests that the decision to fund GHF may have been influenced more by political considerations than by a thorough evaluation of the organization’s capabilities. Sources indicated that the full 14-page assessment was not shared with GHF before the funding was approved, raising questions about transparency and accountability.
The Impact on Aid Distribution
As of last week, the $30 million in funding had not yet been disbursed, according to a State Department spokesperson. The funds are to be released in tranches, contingent on GHF completing key tasks such as registering in the government system, pre-vetting partners, and providing evidence of external audits.
The delay in disbursement has led to further scrutiny of GHF’s operations, with critics arguing that the organization lacks the necessary infrastructure and oversight to effectively deliver aid. The group’s planned expansion from four to eight aid distribution sites has also raised concerns, as there are no details on where these new sites will be located or how they will be managed.
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
The controversy surrounding GHF highlights the broader challenges of delivering aid in conflict zones. While the goal of providing essential supplies to those in need is clear, the methods used to achieve this goal must be scrutinized to ensure that they do not put vulnerable populations at greater risk.
Critics argue that the focus should be on creating a transparent and accountable aid system that prioritizes the safety and well-being of all Palestinians, regardless of political affiliations. The ongoing debate over GHF’s operations underscores the need for a more inclusive and equitable approach to humanitarian aid in Gaza.
The Future of Aid in Gaza
As the situation in Gaza continues to evolve, the role of organizations like GHF remains a contentious issue. While the Trump administration has defended its decision to fund the group, the internal review by USAID raises serious questions about the effectiveness and safety of its operations.
The future of aid in Gaza will depend on the ability of all stakeholders to work together to create a system that is both efficient and ethical. This includes ensuring that aid reaches those who need it most while upholding the principles of humanitarian aid.
