Aid to Gaza and the “$2.1 Billion to Hamas” Claim

 

Carl Higbie’s Claim and Context

On Newsmax TV in August 2025, host Carl Higbie alleged that U.S. aid money intended for Gaza had effectively enriched Hamas. He stated that before aid was cut off under President Trump, USAID sent $2.1 billion to Gaza (including a mysterious $200 million to “miscellaneous” recipients) with “no transparency at all… and that goes directly to Hamas”newsmax.com. In other words, Higbie suggested that $2.1 billion in NGO-delivered aid was diverted to Hamas. This claim echoed remarks by others on his program – for example, former Gov. Mike Huckabee told Newsmax that $2.1 billion in past U.S. Gaza funding was “untraceable” through NGOsnewsmax.com. The $2.1 billion figure appears to refer to the total U.S. humanitarian funding for Gaza over a certain period (for instance, cumulative aid restored in recent years). The key question is whether there is evidence that this money was siphoned off to Hamas rather than reaching civilian needs.

Fact-Checks and Official Findings

Independent fact-checks and official sources strongly contradict Higbie’s $2.1 billion claim. A Reuters investigative report found “no evidence of systematic theft by…Hamas of U.S.-funded humanitarian supplies” in Gazareuters.com. An internal USAID analysis of 156 reported theft incidents (Oct 2023–May 2025) “found no reports alleging Hamas” benefited from U.S. aid, and noted no indication that Hamas was diverting those suppliesreuters.com. A PolitiFact review (citing that USAID data) likewise concluded there was “no indication of systemic loss” due to Hamas interference – in fact, less than 1% of U.S. aid was affected by any theft, diversion or fraudpolitifact.com. These findings directly refute the idea that billions in aid were handed off to Hamas.

Other credible sources also find no proof of such massive diversion. The Associated Press, for example, reported that while Israel often accuses Hamas of seizing aid, “Israel says Hamas was siphoning it off, though it has provided no evidence of widespread theft”apnews.com. Even some Israeli military officials have privately acknowledged a lack of evidence that Hamas “routinely” steals humanitarian shipments, according to news reports (a New York Times account noted no proof of systematic looting by Hamas)apnews.com. And on the ground, United Nations aid leaders have flatly rejected claims of organized Hamas theft. Cindy McCain, head of the U.N. World Food Programme, said her staff in Gaza saw “no” sign that Hamas was stealing food aid – the chaos at aid trucks came from desperate civilians, “not…any kind of organized” Hamas effortthe-independent.com. In short, major humanitarian agencies and U.S. officials have not observed evidence that Hamas is creaming off the bulk of international aid, let alone on the order of billions of dollars.

Oversight and Misuse Concerns vs. Evidence

It is true that critics have raised oversight concerns about aid to Gaza. Watchdog groups like NGO Monitor have noted large sums that were hard to trace (e.g. over $200 million in USAID grants to unspecified local partners)city-journal.org, and a U.S. House hearing in Feb. 2025 featured witnesses claiming vetting was waived for Gaza relief, allegedly enabling Hamas to benefitoversight.house.gov. These points suggest risk of diversion if proper safeguards fail. However, allegations are not proof. To date no public audit or investigation has confirmed that $2.1 billion (or any similar figure) was diverted to Hamas’s coffers. In fact, no specific evidence has been presented tracing that exact sum to Hamas. Past cases of aid misuse in Gaza have been limited and disputed – for instance, an ex-World Vision manager was accused of diverting funds to Hamas, but independent audits found the alleged $50 million theft implausiblethe-independent.com. The consensus of neutral experts is that while Hamas does exploit some resources, there is no credible documentation that it hijacked billions in NGO aid.

Conclusion

Carl Higbie’s claim that “$2.1 billion” in Gaza aid was transferred to Hamas is not supported by credible evidence. It appears to be a politicized assertion rather than a documented fact. Reputable fact-checkers, U.S. officials, and humanitarian organizations all indicate that there is no proof of such massive diversionreuters.compolitifact.com. Hamas’s corruption and control in Gaza are well-known problems, but the specific figure of $2.1 billion supposedly funnelled through NGOs to Hamas lacks factual backing. On the contrary, available evidence directly contradicts the idea of a multi-billion dollar aid transfer to Hamas, making Higbie’s dramatic claim highly dubiousapnews.comreuters.com.

Sources: Carl Higbie/Newsmax statementsnewsmax.comnewsmax.com; Reuters & AP reportsreuters.comapnews.com; PolitiFact/USAID analysispolitifact.com; Cindy McCain (WFP) remarksthe-independent.com.

Why Gazans Voted for Hamas—and Why Blaming Them Today Is Misleading

 

When Carl Higbie of Newsmax says that the people of Gaza are responsible for the deaths and destruction because they elected Hamas, he misses the deeper history. The choice made in 2006 was not the open-ended endorsement of Hamas that many in the West assume. It was one election, held nearly two decades ago, in a moment of frustration and despair.

In January 2006, Palestinians went to the polls in legislative elections. Hamas, the Islamist movement that had built its reputation in the first intifada, won a decisive victory. Why did it happen? Many observers agree that it was less a vote for religious rule than a vote against corruption. Fatah, the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority, had been in charge for over a decade. It was seen as weak, compromised, and riddled with self-enrichment.

“People were tired of Fatah’s failures, both in governance and in negotiations,” explained Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, in an interview with NPR. “Hamas represented change. It represented clean hands.”

Hamas also built influence by providing social services. Long before it entered the ballot box, it ran schools, health clinics, and charities. In a society where official institutions often failed, that mattered. A shopkeeper in Gaza City told The New York Times at the time, “At least they take care of the poor. Fatah only takes care of itself.”

The political appeal was reinforced by its image of resistance. For Palestinians who saw the peace process collapse and settlements expand, Hamas’s refusal to compromise felt like dignity. “People were voting against Oslo, against the status quo,” said Nathan Brown, a scholar of Middle Eastern politics at George Washington University.

Yet the 2006 victory was the last time Gazans had a real say. The U.S. and Israel refused to accept the result, sanctions followed, and fighting broke out between Fatah and Hamas. By 2007, Gaza and the West Bank were divided. Hamas controlled Gaza, Fatah remained in the West Bank, and no further elections were held. Today, nearly half the population of Gaza is under eighteen. They never had the chance to vote in the first place.

Critics of Higbie’s framing point out that holding all Gazans responsible is unjust. The International Crisis Group observed, “The lack of elections has locked Palestinians into a leadership they may or may not support, with no peaceful avenue for change.” That is the reality of life under blockade and factional conflict.

There is also the question of coercion. Since 2007, Hamas has consolidated power in Gaza by silencing rivals. Independent voices face pressure, arrest, or worse. Ordinary people cannot openly oppose them. To suggest that 2 million civilians—most of them children—are collectively guilty for decisions made in one frozen election is morally unsound.

The deeper tragedy is that Gaza’s people are trapped between external siege and internal repression. They were given one choice, almost twenty years ago, in a moment when anger outweighed hope. That choice has since been weaponized by critics who argue that Gazans brought this on themselves.

History does not support that view. The election was a protest, not a blank check. The absence of new elections is not the people’s decision. And the suffering of civilians today cannot be excused by a single ballot cast in 2006.

As the late Palestinian analyst Ghassan Khatib once said, “Voting for Hamas was not voting for endless war. It was voting against the corruption that was strangling us.” That distinction still matters.