Firms led by US military veterans deliver aid in Africa and Gaza, alarming humanitarian groups

In South Sudan and Gaza, two for-profit US companies led by American national security veterans are delivering aid in operations backed by the South Sudanese and Israeli governments.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
The American contractors say they're putting their security, logistics, and intelligence skills to work in relief operations. Fogbow, the US company that carried out last week's air drops over South Sudan, says it aims to be a 'humanitarian' force.
Advertisement
'We've worked for careers, collectively, in conflict zones. And we know how to essentially make very difficult situations work,' said Fogbow president Michael Mulroy, a retired CIA officer and former senior defense official in the first Trump administration, speaking on the airport tarmac in Juba, South Sudan's capital.
But the UN and many leading nonprofit groups say US contracting firms are stepping into aid distribution with little transparency or humanitarian experience, and, crucially, without commitment to humanitarian principles of neutrality and operational independence in war zones.
Advertisement
'What we've learned over the years of successes and failures is there's a difference between a logistics operation and a security operation, and a humanitarian operation,' said Scott Paul, a director at Oxfam America.
''Truck and chuck' doesn't help people,' Paul said. 'It puts people at risk.'
Fogbow took journalists up in a cargo plane to watch their team drop 16 tons of beans, co,rn and salt for South Sudan's Upper Nile state town of Nasir.
Residents fled homes there after fighting erupted in March between the government and opposition groups.
Mulroy acknowledged the controversy over Fogbow's aid drops, which he said were paid for by the South Sudanese government.
But, he maintained: 'We don't want to replace any entity' in aid work.
Fogbow was in the spotlight last year for its proposal to
Since then, Fogbow has carried out aid drops
Fogbow says ex-humanitarian officials are also involved, including former UN World Food Program head David Beasley, who is a senior adviser.
Operating in Gaza, meanwhile, Safe Reach Solutions, led by a former CIA officer and other retired US security officers, has partnered with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US-backed nonprofit that Israel says is the linchpin of a new aid system to
Advertisement
Starting in late May, the American-led operation in Gaza has distributed food at fixed sites in southern Gaza, in line with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stated plan to use aid to concentrate the territory's more than 2 million people in the south, freeing Israel to fight Hamas elsewhere. Aid workers fear it's a step toward another of Netanyahu's public goals, removing Palestinians from Gaza in 'voluntary' migrations.
Since then, several hundred Palestinians have been killed and hundreds more wounded
The Israeli military has denied firing on civilians. It says it fired warning shots in several instances, and fired directly at a few 'suspects' who ignored warnings and approached its forces.
It's unclear who is funding the new operation in Gaza. No donor has come forward, and the US says it's not funding it.
In response to criticism over its Gaza aid deliveries, Safe Reach Solutions said it has former aid workers on its team with 'decades of experience in the world's most complex environments' who bring 'expertise to the table, along with logisticians and other experts.'
Last week's air drop over South Sudan went without incident, despite fighting nearby. A white cross marked the drop zone. Only a few people could be seen. Fogbow contractors said there were more newly returned townspeople on previous drops.
Fogbow acknowledges glitches in mastering aid drops, including one last year in Sudan's South Kordofan region that ended up with too-thinly-wrapped grain sacks split open on the ground.
Advertisement
After gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has
South Sudan said it engaged Fogbow for air drops partly because of the
But two South Sudanese groups question the government's motives.
'We don't want to see a humanitarian space being abused by military actors ... under the cover of a food drop,' said Edmund Yakani, head of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization, a local civil society group.
Asked about suspicions the aid drops were helping South Sudan's military aims, Fogbow's Mulroy said the group has worked with the UN World Food Program to make sure 'this aid is going to civilians.'
'If it wasn't going to civilians, we would hope that we would get that feedback, and we would cease and desist,' Mulroy said.
In a statement, WFP country director Mary-Ellen McGroarty said: 'WFP is not involved in the planning, targeting or distribution of food air-dropped' by Fogbow on behalf of South Sudan's government, citing humanitarian principles.
Longtime humanitarian leaders and analysts are troubled by what they see as a teaming up of warring governments and for-profit contractors in aid distribution.
When one side in a conflict decides where and how aid is handed out, and who gets it, 'it will always result in some communities getting preferential treatment,' said Jan Egeland, executive director of the Norwegian Refugee Council.
Advertisement

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

31 minutes ago

• Politico

Israel presses ahead with strikes as Trump's 2-week deadline looms

Israeli officials insisted Friday that they will keep up their bombing campaign against Iran, even as President Donald Trump has given Tehran a two-week deadline to come to some sort of diplomatic deal that reins in its nuclear program. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, laid out his country's case at the U.N. Security Council, facing off Friday with Iranian representatives who urged the world to stop the Israeli strikes. 'Israel will not stop. Not until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled, not until its war machine is disarmed, not until our people and yours are safe,' Danon declared. The Israeli assertions highlight how Trump's statement that he'll decide 'in the next two weeks' whether to strike Iranian nuclear sites provides an opportunity to Israel as much as it puts pressure on Iran. For Iran, it's two weeks to come to some sort of diplomatic deal with the U.S. that constrains its nuclear, and possibly other, programs. For Israel, it's a focused timeframe to do as much damage as it can to Iran's nuclear and broader military infrastructure before the U.S. may pressure it to accept a diplomatic solution. The more damage Israel does, the more it could weaken an enemy and improve the odds that Iran will capitulate to U.S. demands in the diplomatic process. The strikes themselves couldthreaten the survival of Iran's Islamist regime. Trump told reporters on Friday that he wasn't about to push Israel to halt its assault in Iran while he weighs what the U.S. should do. 'It's very hard to make that request right now,' Trump said. 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' A senior administration official, granted anonymity to speak about the president's thinking, said 'everything is still on the table.' 'This is about giving this a little time and seeing if things look any different in a couple weeks,' the official said. Trump's 'two-week' window was delivered Thursday by press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said, quoting Trump, that his delay in determining whether to join Israel's attack on Iran was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' Trump often says he'll make decisions in two weeks, only to extend his deadline again or never follow through. Still, Israel and Iran appear to believe the next two weeks will be a crucial phase. Iranian officials showed up for nuclear talks with European officials on Friday in Geneva; Israel pressed ahead with its bombing campaign against Iran, which is responding with missiles. Iranian officials met Friday with European envoys in Geneva in an attempt to revitalize the diplomatic process. The talks ended on an ambiguous note. Iranian officials have said their participation in future talks would hinge on Israel stopping its attacks. Some European representatives said talks should continue regardless, even as they urged both sides to avoid escalation. 'We invited the Iranian minister to consider negotiations with all sides, including the United States, without awaiting the cessation of strikes, which we also hope for,' French foreign minister Jean-Noel Barrot said. For Israel, the most critical, but perhaps toughest, official objective is eliminating Iran's nuclear facility at Fordo. That facility is buried deep underground, and Israel has been hoping Trump will enter the fight and use special, massive U.S. bombs to destroy it. There are concerns, however, including among Republicans, that Iran could retaliate against U.S. assets if America enters the conflict on any level, dragging America into another Middle Eastern war. Trump campaigned on avoiding such wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hinted that Israel has means to destroy Fordo on its own. It's not clear what those methods could involve, but Israel has significant intelligence operations inside Iran and it has often surprised even Washington with its capabilities. Either way, current and former Israeli officials said they saw no reason for Israel to back off its strikes now, despite calls for deescalation from some world capitals. The more Israel degrades Iran's capabilities, the less able Tehran will be to mount retaliatory attacks on Israel or the United States, should the latter choose to enter the war. From the beginning, 'the Israeli planning was based on the assumption that we have to do it alone,' said a former Israeli diplomat familiar with the situation. The person, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss highly sensitive issues. It's unclear whether there is any deal with Iran that Israel would deem strong enough. There is tremendous distrust of Iran's Islamist regime within Israel's security establishment, leading to a sense that Iran would cheat on any deal. Another unsettled question is whether a deal with Iran will cover only its nuclear program or also curb its ballistic missile initiative and support for proxy militias in the region. Some analysts have argued that Netanyahu decided to begin attacking Iran last week because he was worried earlier nuclear talks between Iran and the Trump administration would yield too weak a deal. If new efforts at diplomacy yield fruit, Trump could pressure Netanyahu to accept whatever deal emerges, potentially even by threatening to withhold weapons and other equipment Israel needs to defend itself against Iran. The war is costly for Israel, which has been fighting on multiple fronts — in particular against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip — since October 2023. As one Israeli official said, Iranian missile attacks feel like 'Russian roulette' to Israeli citizens.

Associated Press

31 minutes ago

• Associated Press

Trump says Gabbard was 'wrong' about Iran and Israeli strikes could be 'very hard to stop'

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was 'wrong' when she previously said that the U.S. believed Iran wasn't building a nuclear weapon, and he suggested that it would be 'very hard to stop' Israel's strikes on Iran in order to negotiate a possible ceasefire. Trump has recently taken a more aggressive public stance toward Tehran as he's sought more time to weigh whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility. Buried under a mountain, the facility is believed to be out of the reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. After landing in New Jersey for an evening fundraiser for his super political action committee, Trump was asked about Gabbard's comments to Congress in March that U.S. spy agencies believed that Iran wasn't working on nuclear warheads. The president responded, 'Well then, my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?' Informed that it had been Gabbard, Trump said, 'She's wrong.' In a subsequent post on X, Gabbard said her testimony was taken out of context 'as a way to manufacture division.' 'America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly,' she wrote. 'President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree.' Still, disavowing Gabbard's previous assessment came a day after the White House said Trump would decide within two weeks whether the U.S. military would get directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. It said seeking additional time was 'based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future.' But on Friday, Trump himself seemed to cast doubts on the possibility of talks leading to a pause in fighting between Israel and Iran. He said that, while he might support a ceasefire, Israel's strikes on Iran could be 'very hard to stop.' Asked about Iran suggesting that, if the U.S. was serious about furthering negotiations, it could call on Israel to stop its strikes, Trump responded, 'I think it's very hard to make that request right now.' 'If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing,' Trump said. 'But we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens.' The president later added, 'It's very hard to stop when you look at it.' 'Israel's doing well in terms of war. And, I think, you would say that Iran is doing less well. It's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop,' Trump said. Trump campaigned on decrying 'endless wars' and has vowed to be an international peacemaker. That's led some, even among conservatives, to point to Trump's past criticism of the U.S. invasion of Iraq beginning in 2003 as being at odds with his more aggressive stance toward Iran now. Trump suggested the two situations were very different, though. 'There were no weapons of mass destruction. I never thought there were. And that was somewhat pre-nuclear. You know, it was, it was a nuclear age, but nothing like it is today,' Trump said of his past criticism of the administration of President George W. Bush. He added of Iran's current nuclear program, 'It looked like I'm right about the material that they've gathered already. It's a tremendous amount of material.' Trump also cast doubts on Iran's developing nuclear capabilities for civilian pursuits, like power generation. 'You're sitting on one of the largest oil piles anywhere in the world,' he said. 'It's a little bit hard to see why you'd need that.' ____

The Hill

31 minutes ago

• The Hill

Trump: ‘Maybe I'll have to change my mind' about firing Powell

President Trump on Friday floated the possibility of firing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell as part of his latest round of intense criticism of the leader of the central bank over its decision not to lower interest rates. Trump, in a lengthy post on Truth Social, railed against Powell, labeling him a 'numbskull,' 'a dumb guy,' 'and an obvious Trump Hater.' Trump appointed Powell to the post in 2017. 'I fully understand that my strong criticism of him makes it more difficult for him to do what he should be doing, lowering Rates, but I've tried it all different ways,' Trump posted. 'I've been nice, I've been neutral, and I've been nasty, and nice and neutral didn't work!' The post included a graphic showing how the United States' central bank rate compared to other nations. 'I don't know why the Board doesn't override this Total and Complete Moron!' Trump added 'Maybe, just maybe, I'll have to change my mind about firing him? But regardless, his Term ends shortly!' Powell's term ends in 2026. He said last November he would not step down if Trump asked, and that it is 'not permitted under the law' for the president to fire or demote him or any of the other Fed governors with leadership positions. Trump in April said he had no intention of firing Powell, though he has in recent days ratcheted up his criticism amid frustration over the Fed's handling of interest rates. Fed officials kicked off the year expecting to continue cutting interest rates as inflation drifted back toward its ideal annual level of 2 percent. But the bank has held off through the first half of 2025 amid the uncertainty driven by Trump's tariff plans. Powell reiterated his call for patience Wednesday, after the Fed kept rates steady once again.