Restrictions on aid deliveries by foreign governments may violate law, US lawmakers say
FILE PHOTO: Pro-Palestinian demonstrators take part in a protest against the drone attack on a Gaza-bound activist aid ship, near the Israeli Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, May 2, 2025. REUTERS/Dilara Senkaya/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: Palestinian men walk near rubble of houses destroyed during the Israeli offensive, in Rafah, in the southern Gaza Strip, March 13, 2025. REUTERS/Hatem Khaled/File Photo
Restrictions on aid deliveries by foreign governments may violate law, US lawmakers say
WASHINGTON - A group of U.S. senators wants Congress' watchdog agency to investigate whether controls on humanitarian aid deliveries by Israel and other foreign governments violate U.S. law, according to a letter seen by Reuters.
The six senators - Chris Van Hollen, Dick Durbin, Jeff Merkley, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Peter Welch - wrote to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro asking him to launch an investigation by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office of the U.S. government's implementation of laws regarding the delivery of humanitarian assistance. All of the senators are Democrats except Sanders, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats.
"In Ethiopia, Sudan, Ukraine, Burma, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Gaza, vital humanitarian assistance such as food, medical equipment, water purification systems, and other lifesaving goods have been blocked or restricted, directly and indirectly, by state and non-state actors," they said in a letter, dated Monday and seen by Reuters, referring to Section 620I of the Foreign Assistance Act and the Leahy Laws.
The Leahy Laws prohibit the supply of U.S. assistance to any foreign security force unit implicated in gross violations of human rights, including torture and extrajudicial killing. Section 620I bars assistance for countries that impede delivery of humanitarian aid.
Much recent concern has focused on Gaza. The United Nations and Palestinian representatives at the International Court of Justice have accused Israel of breaking international law by refusing to let aid into Gaza, after Israel began on March 2 to cut off all supplies to the 2.3 million residents of the Palestinian enclave. Israel has defended its blockade against aid entering Gaza, alleging that Hamas steals supplies intended for the civilian population and distributes them to its own forces, an allegation that Hamas denies.
Activists have long argued that the United States disregards its own laws in sending military and other assistance abroad.
Concern about civilians in Gaza has risen since Republican President Donald Trump, who is a staunch supporter of Israel, began his second term on January 20.
Aid workers also have accused Sudanese paramilitaries of constraining aid deliveries in territories where it is seeking to cement its control.
Rights groups sounded alarms on Monday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet approved plans for an expanded offensive against the Palestinian militant group Hamas that might include seizing the entire Gaza Strip and controlling aid.
The war in Gaza followed Hamas' October 7, 2023, attack on Israel that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians, according to Israeli tallies, and saw 251 taken hostage.
Israel's ground and air campaign in Gaza has since killed more than 52,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians according to local health authorities, and left much of Gaza in ruins. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
6 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Intense Russian drone attack on Kharkiv kills 2, injures 38, Ukraine says
KHARKIV - A nine-minute-long Russian drone attack on Ukraine's second largest city of Kharkiv killed at least two people and injured 38, including five children, regional officials said on Wednesday. The intense strikes with 17 drones sparked fires in 15 units of a five-storey apartment building and caused other damage in the city close to the Russian border, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov said. "There are direct hits on multi-storey buildings, private homes, playgrounds, enterprises and public transport," Terekhov said on the Telegram messaging app. "Apartments are burning, roofs are destroyed, cars are burnt, windows are broken." A Reuters witness saw emergency rescuers helping to carry people out of damaged buildings, administering care and firefighters battling blazes in the dark. Nine of the injured, including a 2-year-old girl and a 15-year-old boy, have been hospitalised, Oleh Sinehubov, the governor of the broader Kharkiv region, said on Telegram. He added that the strikes hit also a city trolley bus depot and several residential buildings. There was no immediate comment from Russia. Kharkiv, in Ukraine's northeast, withstood Russian full-scale advance in the early days of the war and has since been a frequent target of air assaults. The attack followed Russia's two biggest assaults of the war on Ukraine this week, a part of intensified bombardments that Moscow said were retaliatory measures for Kyiv's recent attacks in Russia. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched on its smaller neighbour in February 2022. But thousands of civilians have died in the conflict, the vast majority of them Ukrainian. "We are holding on. We are helping each other. And we will definitely survive," Terekhov said. "Kharkiv is Ukraine. And it cannot be broken." REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
6 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court decides
The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Mr Trump cited. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on June 10 while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Mr Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC means Mr Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his 'Liberation Day' tariffs on imports from most US trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Mr Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Mr Trump as negotiating leverage with US trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminium imports. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the US Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law intended to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Centre on behalf of five small US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 US states. Mr Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the US or freeze their assets. Mr Trump is the first US president to use it to impose tariffs. Mr Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at US borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all US trading partners imposed in April were a response to the US trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long US practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, DC, also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Mr Trump has claimed. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
10 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump holds a chart next to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick as Trump delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/File Photo A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
