Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What international organizations have reported aid theft by Hamas in Gaza?
Executive summary
Multiple international actors and bodies have been cited in reporting about alleged diversion or theft of humanitarian aid in Gaza — but their statements diverge. A U.S. military release and U.S. officials (including CENTCOM and Secretary Marco Rubio) publicized drone footage of suspected looting [1]; Israeli military and some Israeli officials have repeatedly accused Hamas of diverting supplies [2] [3]; by contrast, an internal USAID/BHA analysis reviewed 156 incident reports and concluded there were “no reports alleging Hamas” benefited from U.S.-funded supplies [4], and major U.N. and humanitarian organizations publicly denied systematic diversion by Hamas [5] [6].
1. Who publicly accused Hamas of stealing or diverting aid — and where those claims appeared
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) released drone footage in November 2025 showing people taking items from an aid truck; the footage was amplified by U.S. officials on social media and in press coverage, and Secretary Marco Rubio framed the incident as evidence Hamas “continues to deprive the people of Gaza of the humanitarian aid they desperately need” [1] [7]. Israeli military and government officials have for months asserted Hamas has siphoned, taxed or sold aid — with Israeli intelligence and IDF briefings cited in press reporting claiming Hamas diverted up to 25% in some incidents [3] [2]. Israeli outlets and government-linked groups have also published declassified materials alleging diversion [8].
2. What major international organizations have said publicly
The internal U.S. analysis from USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance found no incident reports that directly allege Hamas benefited from U.S.-funded supplies after reviewing 156 partner reports — a finding reported by Reuters and summarized as “no reports alleging Hamas” benefited [4]. The United Nations and many humanitarian NGOs pushed back against claims of systematic diversion: multiple humanitarian organizations and U.N. actors rejected the scale of the theft narrative and warned that politicizing aid endangers operations [5] [6]. NGO coalitions and NGOs such as MSF publicly criticized militarized or alternative distribution schemes and raised concerns about deaths at distribution sites, while calling for unimpeded UN-led access [9] [10].
3. Where reporting and official claims conflict
Reuters’ reporting of the USAID finding directly challenges the claims used by some governments to justify new aid mechanisms — Reuters reported an internal analysis that did not find evidence of systemic Hamas theft of U.S.-funded supplies [4]. Israeli senior military officials, however, told the New York Times and Israeli outlets they lacked proof that Hamas systematically stole U.N. aid, while still accusing Hamas of exploiting smaller groups or imposing taxes [2]. Thus, U.S. military releases and some Israeli intelligence claims exist alongside official U.S. agency analysis and UN/NGO denials — creating competing narratives in the public record [1] [4] [5].
4. Independent or third‑party reporting and watchdog mentions
Investigative and opinion outlets have debated the mechanisms and incentives for diversion. NGO Monitor and similar groups have flagged historical examples and risks of diversion in Gaza and elsewhere and scrutinized links between local actors and international partners [11]. Commentators argued that remote monitoring and partner self-reporting can undercount thefts tied to armed actors — a methodological caveat highlighted in commentary [12]. At the same time, humanitarian groups noted restrictions on access, crossing closures and opaque inspections complicate both delivery and clear accounting [6] [13].
5. What the evidence in available reporting does — and does not — establish
Available reporting shows (a) video and intelligence releases purporting to show individual incidents of looting publicized by CENTCOM and Israeli authorities [1] [7], and (b) an internal USAID review that found no reports alleging Hamas benefited from U.S.-funded supplies among 156 incident reports [4]. Sources do not provide conclusive, public accounting that quantifies systematic Hamas control of major UN or U.S.-funded aid streams; Reuters and UN/NGO statements denied broad, systematic diversion [4] [5]. Where classified intelligence or non-public data exist, those materials are referenced by officials but are not fully available in public reporting cited here [3].
6. Takeaway for readers and journalists
Readers should note competing claims from military/defense releases and intelligence-backed assertions (CENTCOM, IDF) versus humanitarian agency analyses (USAID/BHA, U.N., NGOs). Each side has incentives: governments justifying alternative distribution mechanisms or restrictions emphasize diversion risks, while UN and aid agencies stress operational constraints and warn that politicized accusations undermine relief [3] [5] [10]. Current public reporting documents specific alleged incidents and an internal U.S. review that found no direct reports tying Hamas to U.S.-funded supply diversion, but it does not settle every disputed intelligence claim — available sources do not detail classified evidence some governments cite [4] [3].