Did Donald Trump or his administration authorize payments that benefited the Taliban?
Executive summary
Reporting shows claims that the Trump administration directly authorized fresh cash payments to the Taliban are disputed and often based on inaccurate or reused imagery; fact-checkers say a viral claim about a $45 million cash flight on Dec. 8, 2025 is false and used an old photo [1]. Independent oversight reports and reporting by ProPublica and Congress sources document that some U.S.-funded humanitarian assistance routed through U.N. channels has at times ended up in accounts controlled by the Taliban’s central bank — not direct U.S. payments to the militant organization — and the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has flagged those pathways [2] [3].
1. The viral $45 million story: debunked image, contested claim
Multiple social posts and conservative commentators alleged the Trump administration “flew $45M in cash” to the Taliban, widely citing a photo allegedly from Dec. 8, 2025; fact-checkers found the photo dated to 2023 and tied to U.N. cash shipments, concluding the specific December-2025 claim is false [1]. News outlets repeated the allegation before verification, and independent fact-checking notes show the image was reused and the immediate allegation lacked documentary proof [1].
2. How U.S. money can indirectly benefit the Taliban: the U.N. and the central bank
A SIGAR report described routes by which U.S. taxpayer-funded humanitarian assistance, channeled through the U.N., has at times been deposited in Afghan banking systems that fall under Taliban control — meaning some U.S.-supported funds effectively reached the Taliban-controlled central bank, even if not delivered as direct U.S. payments to the group [2]. ProPublica’s reporting summarized the inspector general’s findings that “some taxpayer money has ended up in the Taliban-controlled central bank,” underscoring the practical problem of aid delivery in a state controlled by an internationally sanctioned de facto authority [2].
3. Official U.S. posture: denial of direct payments, policy shifts that affect aid flows
The State Department has publicly maintained that it did not directly fund the militant organization; at the same time, U.S. policy choices have shifted under the Trump administration — including an executive order pausing foreign assistance and USAID program changes — that altered which programs continued and how humanitarian funding was routed, complicating accountability and increasing risk that indirect channels could benefit the Taliban [3] [4]. Congress and SIGAR documents note nearly $3 billion in humanitarian and development assistance between Oct. 2021 and Dec. 2024, and lawmakers raised concerns about diversion of aid to Taliban-controlled institutions [3].
4. Competing narratives: Trump’s accusations and Taliban denials
President Trump publicly accused prior U.S. administrations of funneling large sums to the Taliban; the Taliban and its spokespeople have rejected claims that they “anticipate or seek” U.S. assistance and have denied receiving direct U.S. funds, framing the issue as the U.S. having frozen Afghan assets rather than paid the group [5] [6]. These opposing statements reflect political messaging: Trump’s critique is aimed at portraying opponents as weak on enforcement, while the Taliban’s denials serve both diplomatic and domestic legitimacy aims [5] [6].
5. What oversight found — and what it did not prove
SIGAR and investigative reporting documented that donations routed through U.N. mechanisms have at times been deposited in banking systems where the Taliban exerts control, creating a realistic pathway for some U.S.-funded resources to be co-mingled with Taliban-controlled funds [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention a direct, contemporaneous authorization by President Trump personally to hand fresh U.S. cash to the Taliban on a charter flight in December 2025; the widely circulated $45 million photo-based allegation was debunked by fact-checkers [1].
6. Why the distinction between “direct” and “indirect” payments matters
Legally and politically, a direct transfer of U.S. funds to a designated terrorist organization would be explicit and consequential; indirect benefit — where humanitarian aid routed through multilateral partners ends up under Taliban control — reflects operational realities and policy trade-offs in delivering aid in authoritarian or contested settings [2] [3]. Policymakers and critics differ sharply on whether cutting off aid to avoid any potential benefit to the Taliban is preferable to maintaining humanitarian lines that reduce civilian suffering; both policy choices carry clear human and strategic costs [3] [4].
7. Bottom line and reporting gaps
Current reporting and fact-checking show no verified evidence in available sources that the Trump administration directly authorized a fresh cash flight delivering $45 million to the Taliban on Dec. 8, 2025 — that claim was debunked as using an old photo [1]. However, oversight reporting confirms that some U.S.-funded aid routed through the U.N. has ended up in Afghan central bank accounts controlled by the Taliban, meaning U.S. assistance has at times indirectly benefited Taliban-controlled institutions [2] [3]. Further public documentation — e.g., declassified accounting or flight manifests — is not found in current reporting and would be needed to substantiate any claim of an explicit, direct payment ordered by the administration [1].