Starvation and Gunfire: How Washington Fast-Tracked Millions for a Gaza Aid Group Despite Red Flags From Its Own Experts

A confidential USAID assessment revealed “critical” concerns about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s (GHF) ability to protect Palestinian civilians and deliver food just days before the State Department approved $30 million in funding for the group.

The State Department defended its decision, calling GHF the “only viable” option to get aid into Gaza without empowering Hamas, and highlighting its rapid delivery of millions of meals. Critics, however, argue the group’s operations violate humanitarian principles and exacerbate risks to civilians.

By InDepthReports Staff, Abou-Ghazala and Jennifer Hansler

Gaza City – On a sweltering afternoon in early June, hundreds of Palestinians crowded outside a fenced distribution point in northern Gaza. Many had been without bread for days. Mothers cradled frail children, fathers clutched plastic bags, teenagers pressed forward against the barricades. Then the shots rang out. Witnesses say panic erupted, and bodies fell.

This was not a scene at a war front, but outside a humanitarian food site operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) — an American-backed group the U.S. government had just pledged to support with $30 million in emergency funding.

To Washington, GHF was framed as the fastest way to “feed the people of Gaza” and bypass what Trump administration officials call a “broken aid system.” But an internal U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) review, completed days before the announcement, warned the opposite: GHF lacked the safeguards, planning, and basic operational capacity to protect civilians or ensure aid reached those who needed it most.

The 14-page assessment, obtained by InDepthReports, was blunt. The funding application was “abysmal,” “sorely lacking real content,” and missing nine essential elements normally required before taxpayer money is released. USAID experts flagged glaring issues: a plan without clear distribution points, a budget riddled with inconsistencies, and a proposal to hand out powdered infant formula in areas without clean water — a practice that can kill infants in crisis zones.

“I do not concur with moving forward with GHF given operational and reputational risks and lack of oversight,” one USAID official concluded in the report.

A Plan With No Path

The USAID assessment reads less like a formality and more like a warning. GHF’s “risk management” document was just three pages long, offering no concrete strategies to prevent harm or guarantee access for the most vulnerable. Its mission statement failed to meet requirements for “Safe and Accountable programming.”

Key questions were left unanswered: How would food be distributed to those trapped in areas under heavy bombardment? How would vulnerable groups — the elderly, disabled, pregnant women — be reached? Where exactly would the promised expansion from four to eight distribution sites occur? The application contained no maps, no population data, and no logistics plans.

One particularly stark warning came over GHF’s plan to distribute powdered infant formula. USAID guidelines are explicit: in environments without clean, boiled water, formula can lead to severe illness or death among infants. The reviewers noted that GHF’s plan showed no evidence of providing safe preparation facilities or fuel for boiling water.

“This is not a theoretical risk,” a former USAID nutrition advisor told InDepthReports. “In conflict zones, contaminated formula kills babies. It is unconscionable to approve it without safeguards.”

The Political Push

Normally, such deficiencies would halt funding until corrections were made. GHF would have been required to respond to USAID’s feedback, clarify gaps, and re-submit a compliant plan. That process never happened.

Instead, senior political appointees, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and foreign assistance chief Jeremy Lewin, pressed for an expedited approval — sidestepping procedural safeguards. An internal June 24 memo from State Department appointee Kenneth Jackson recommended waiving “various criteria given the humanitarian and political urgency of GHF’s operations.”

Two days later, the $30 million award was announced. The decision was made before GHF had completed even the most basic compliance steps, such as registering in federal systems or pre-vetting local partners.

Both Lewin and Jackson were originally placed in their roles by the Elon Musk-backed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a political body critics say has repeatedly prioritized speed and optics over process and accountability.

A Militarized Model of Aid

From its inception, GHF has courted controversy. Its first director resigned before operations began, citing concerns over adherence to humanitarian principles. The organization’s operational model relies on armed American security contractors working in coordination with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to guard food convoys and distribution points.

For civilians, that militarized approach has meant navigating checkpoints, gunfire, and chaos just to access a bag of flour or a tin of beans. In some incidents documented by journalists and aid workers, armed guards have fired live ammunition and stun grenades to disperse hungry crowds.

The United Nations human rights office reports that hundreds of Palestinians have been killed near private aid sites in recent weeks — including GHF-run locations. More than 240 humanitarian organizations have jointly called for an immediate end to GHF’s current operations, warning that “Palestinians in Gaza face an impossible choice: starve or risk being shot while trying to feed their families.”

Shaping the Narrative

Inside the State Department, the concerns were not just operational. Sources told InDepthReports that an internal memo summarizing GHF coverage — which included negative press — was recalled and replaced with a version containing only positive reports. Diplomats were instructed to emphasize GHF’s role in “undermining Hamas” and portray it as the sole viable aid channel.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, in a June 30 internal memo, praised GHF for “critical operations” and claimed its presence prevented Hamas from stealing aid — though Israel has not provided public evidence to substantiate those claims.

Meanwhile, international law experts warn that militarized food aid in active conflict zones risks violating the humanitarian principle of neutrality — potentially making aid workers or recipients legitimate targets in the eyes of armed actors.

On the Ground in Gaza

For residents of Gaza, the debate in Washington feels detached from reality. “We don’t care who gives the food — America, the UN, anyone,” said Amal, a 34-year-old mother of four who has waited in line at two different GHF sites. “But we need to get it alive.”

Her husband, she says, was shot in the leg while trying to collect rice from a distribution point in late June. “We are hungry. The children cry at night. This is not politics for us — this is survival.”

The $30 million grant remains approved but undisbursed as of last week. Yet senior State Department officials have already signaled that more funding could follow if GHF “continues to operate safely and securely.”

Whether that safety — and the dignity of those it claims to serve — can be guaranteed remains an open question. For now, the people of Gaza continue to wait in long lines under the summer sun, caught between aid promised from afar and the gunfire that too often accompanies it.