U.S.-Backed Gaza Aid Group Seeks $30M Funding \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), supported by both Israel and the U.S., has requested a $30 million grant from the Trump administration to sustain aid delivery in southern Gaza. Despite distributing millions of meals, its operations have been marred by near-daily shootings at distribution sites that have killed hundreds. Major humanitarian organizations and the UN accuse GHF of violating neutrality, operating under Israeli military influence, and enabling coercive population control.
Quick Looks
- USAID Funding Request: Organization seeks initial $30 million grant.
- Aid Amid Blockade: Millions of meals distributed since May in southern Gaza.
- Humanitarian Concerns: Aid convoys limited to fixed sites, facing security protests.
- Fatal Shootings: Near-daily shootings targeting aid seekers include hundreds of casualties.
- Israeli Alignment: Foundation’s strategy aligns with Netanyahu’s plan to relocate Gaza civilians southwards.
- Transparency Issues: No private donor funding disclosed; about $119 million expected from ‘other governments’.
Deep Look
In a highly sensitive move with global implications, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF)—an American-led organization operating in one of the world’s most volatile regions—has formally requested $30 million from the United States government. The funding application, submitted to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), seeks to support ongoing relief operations in southern Gaza, a region under immense pressure due to Israel’s blockade and an aggressive military campaign against Hamas.
Obtained by the Associated Press, the application is one of the clearest windows into GHF’s financial strategy and operational goals. It reveals an urgent push for U.S. involvement in a mission already mired in political controversy, regional violence, and international condemnation. This funding request comes at a crucial time, as USAID is being subsumed under the State Department—a structural shift driven by the Trump administration’s broader goal of cutting global aid spending.
Since May, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation claims to have distributed millions of meals to civilians trapped in the southern parts of the Gaza Strip. According to the organization, the food deliveries aim to stave off famine as Gaza experiences one of its most dire humanitarian crises in recent history. While these efforts appear life-saving on the surface, the method and implications of aid distribution have drawn serious criticism from global humanitarian actors.
A key criticism lies in the way food is delivered. GHF operates through fixed distribution sites, which critics argue create predictable crowd formations that are often met with violence. Witnesses and Palestinian health officials report that hundreds of civilians have been killed or wounded while attempting to access aid, often under heavy fire. These incidents are nearly daily occurrences. The Gaza Health Ministry attributes the violence to Israeli forces, who allegedly fire into crowds without provocation. The Israeli military, however, disputes this, asserting that any shots were warnings or targeted responses to individuals deemed security threats.
Further complicating matters is GHF’s perceived alignment with Israeli strategic goals. According to Israeli officials, GHF is central to a new aid delivery model meant to circumvent the United Nations and other established non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which Israel accuses of being infiltrated by Hamas operatives. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration sees GHF as a tool to centralize Palestinian populations in Gaza’s southern corridor, effectively clearing northern and central areas for intensified military operations.
This tactic, however, is raising alarms internationally. Human rights organizations, along with major U.N. agencies, warn that concentrating displaced persons in southern Gaza could facilitate forced or “voluntary” migration—a concept Netanyahu has openly supported. Critics argue that these relocations would constitute coerced population transfers, a violation of international law.
Moreover, GHF faces scrutiny over its lack of transparency and humanitarian expertise. Unlike organizations governed by international humanitarian principles, GHF lacks a demonstrable track record and has not publicly committed to neutrality, independence, or impartiality—core tenets of humanitarian work in conflict zones. The group is accused of operating in a way that furthers political agendas rather than upholding humanitarian integrity.
The financials in GHF’s application only deepen the concern. The foundation notes it received $119 million in May from “other government donors” but declines to identify them. For June, it projects $38 million in further governmental funding, also without specifics. Notably, GHF discloses no contributions from private donors, philanthropic entities, or non-governmental sources. The lack of transparency over its backers and financial oversight raises flags among aid monitors and watchdog groups.
Despite these controversies, two U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity indicated that the Trump administration has already decided to approve the grant. The process, they say, is advancing with minimal oversight—bypassing the comprehensive audits typically required for international aid packages. This fast-tracking further reflects the administration’s broader foreign policy priorities, which favor direct, strategic partnerships over traditional multilateral aid efforts.
In a cover letter submitted with the application, GHF’s Secretary Loik Henderson expressed gratitude for the opportunity to “sustain and scale life-saving operations” in Gaza. The foundation did not respond to media inquiries regarding the funding request or the criticisms leveled against it. The State Department also declined immediate comment.
Ultimately, this case exemplifies the growing divide between humanitarian ethics and geopolitical strategy. It also signals a shift in how aid is conceptualized and delivered under U.S. foreign policy. As conflict persists in Gaza, the debate around who delivers aid—and under what terms—will likely intensify, influencing both the course of the conflict and the fate of millions of civilians caught in the crossfire.
U.S.-Backed Gaza U.S.-Backed Gaza
You must Register or Login to post a comment.