A group of U.S. lawmakers has over recent weeks led a push for the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to explain how it operates. GHF is the Delaware-incorporated non-profit backed by the U.S. and Israel to replace UN aid operations in Gaza. Led by Johnnie Mooreits chairman, GHF has upended the delivery of aid to Palestinians in Gaza, who were already under enormous duress, and placed their lives in even greater peril. A number of members of Congress, all of them Democrats, want to understand why. But meaningful oversight will require that both parties pitch in, and in the hyper-partisan world of Washington, President Trump’s Republican party has closed ranks around the White House as it seeks to avoid scrutiny.  

There could hardly be a more compelling case for proper oversight. When GHF began operations in May, Gaza’s population was already destitute and starving. Israel had imposed a complete blockade for eleven weeks, causing 2.2 million Palestinians to face life-threatening food insecurity. Citing unsubstantiated fears of Hamas stealing aid, Israel moved to replace the UN’s decades-old infrastructure that had distributed aid through 400 sites across Gaza. 

The scheme has given rise to a humanitarian disaster of its own. The four new distribution hubs are in areas secured by the Israeli army, while GHF has hired private security contractors to run its logistics. Video footage and eye-witness accounts show Israeli soldiers and contractors using lethal force against Palestinians seeking aid, even in the absence of a clear security threat. Nearly 700 have been killed near GHF sites from 26 May to 16 July. GHF and Israel accuse Hamas of responsibility, albeit without proof. But in any case, the lion’s share of blame falls on the U.S. and Israel for setting up an aid scheme that makes Palestinians face death or injury every time they attempt to get the food they need to survive. For that and other reasons, the UN has refused to cooperate with GHF. 

Members of Congress trying to understand this calamity have mostly hit a wall. Some members have sent inquiries to GHF, but so far have received no substantive response. Nor does the Trump administration appear eager to face closer inspection of its involvement. Some executive branch officials have privately met with members of Congress, but would not provide details to lawmakers. When approving a $30 million grant of International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funds to GHF, the Trump administration applied an emergency waiver to bypass legally-mandated consultations with Congress required for humanitarian funds spent in Gaza, and disregarded objections from remaining USAID personnel.

U.S. lawmakers seeking explanations of GHF’s objectives and operations might be able to coax the foundation’s leadership and administration officials into attending closed-door meetings. But a disaster of this magnitude requires formal hearings before full committees with bipartisan support. Given the role of the U.S. as home to and patron of the GHF, members of congress on both sides of the aisle should at the very least pursue that kind of robust oversight.