U.S. Revokes UNRWA Legal Immunity Amid Hamas Allegations

U.S. Revokes UNRWA Legal Immunity Amid Hamas Allegations \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Trump administration has revoked UNRWA’s immunity from civil lawsuits, exposing the U.N. agency to litigation in U.S. courts. The shift follows allegations by Israel that UNRWA staff were involved in the October 7 Hamas attack. The agency disputes the charges and maintains it should remain protected under international law.

Quick Looks

• Justice Department reverses decades-long U.S. position on UNRWA immunity
• Families of Hamas attack victims suing the U.N. agency in U.S. court
• UNRWA labeled a “subsidiary organ” of the U.N. by international law
• Trump administration asserts UNRWA must answer accusations in court
• Israel alleged ties between UNRWA staff and Hamas attackers
• UNRWA denies wrongdoing and criticizes U.S. policy reversal
• The agency provides aid to millions of Palestinian refugees
• Legal shift could impact other U.N. bodies’ protections in the U.S.
• Humanitarian operations in Gaza at risk amid ongoing war
• UNRWA warns this could politicize humanitarian assistance globally

Deep Look

In a move that could send shockwaves through global diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and international law, the Trump administration has upended decades of U.S. policy by declaring that the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) is no longer immune from lawsuits in American courts.

This decision, revealed in a Justice Department court filing Thursday, could have seismic consequences — not just for Palestinian refugees, but for the entire structure of U.N. protections that govern international humanitarian work.

What once seemed sacrosanct — the legal immunity of United Nations agencies operating in good faith across the world — now stands on the brink of unraveling.

Why UNRWA Matters

Founded in 1949 after the first Arab-Israeli war, UNRWA was tasked with providing humanitarian aid to Palestinians who fled or were expelled during the creation of Israel. Over 70 years later, it serves over 5.5 million people across Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.

Its role has been especially vital in Gaza, where ongoing war, displacement, and blockade have made UNRWA the main provider of basic services — including education, food assistance, and healthcare.

“Without UNRWA, Gaza would collapse into absolute humanitarian catastrophe,” said a senior U.N. humanitarian coordinator privately.

But after Israel accused UNRWA staff of participating in the October 7 Hamas attack, the Trump administration seized an opportunity to escalate its long-standing grievances against the agency.

The Legal Reversal: A Break From the Past

Until now, every U.S. administration — Republican and Democrat alike — had honored the principle that U.N. bodies are immune from civil litigation in American courts under international law.

Even when tensions flared between Washington and U.N. agencies, the U.S. respected the idea that humanitarian work must be protected from political and legal interference.

“The prior Administration’s view that [UNRWA was immune] was wrong,” declared Trump-appointed prosecutors Jay Clayton and Yaakov Roth in their letter to the court.

The Trump administration’s new stance frames UNRWA not as a neutral international actor, but as a potential co-conspirator in Hamas violence.

The stakes are massive:
If UNRWA can be sued, so can any other U.N. agency operating in the U.S. — from the World Food Programme to the World Health Organization.

Israel’s Allegations — and the Fight for Evidence

Israel claims that 19 UNRWA employees were linked to Hamas’s October 7 attack, and that dozens more were connected to terrorist groups.

• UNRWA, while firing nine staffers, emphasized that the allegations were not verified, nor was the evidence independently corroborated.
• Israel has not yet provided full proof to the United Nations.
• International human rights monitors warn that politicizing humanitarian aid risks turning refugees into pawns in broader geopolitical struggles.

UNRWA denies ever knowingly employing terrorists and insists that it operates under strict U.N. oversight, conducting regular staff vetting with input from Israeli intelligence itself.

“UNRWA has cooperated fully with U.N. investigations and remains committed to neutrality,” said agency spokesperson Juliette Touma.

A Broader Attack on International Norms?

The Trump administration’s actions reflect a deeper ideological hostility toward multilateral institutions:

• Trump withdrew from UNESCO in 2018 over alleged anti-Israel bias.
• He threatened to leave the U.N. Human Rights Council over criticisms of Israel’s West Bank policies.
• He repeatedly derided international organizations as “globalist” enemies of American sovereignty.

Legal scholars worry that ending immunity for U.N. agencies could fatally undermine their ability to function:

“If every refugee agency, food aid program, or health mission can be sued into bankruptcy, humanitarian aid as we know it could collapse,” warned Mary Ellen O’Connell, an international law professor at Notre Dame.

Politicization of Humanitarian Relief

Many see the attack on UNRWA as part of a broader strategy to delegitimize Palestinian claims to nationhood by dismantling the few international structures that still advocate for them.

Already, the funding climate has changed:

• The U.S. suspended its contribution to UNRWA during Trump’s first term.
• Several European countries froze their aid temporarily after the latest allegations.
• Meanwhile, humanitarian needs in Gaza have exploded due to war and displacement.

If UNRWA collapses under legal or financial pressure, millions of Palestinians could face starvation, disease, and homelessness.

A Dangerous Global Precedent

The implications go far beyond Israel and Palestine.

If the United States — the largest funder and host of U.N. bodies — abandons immunity, other countries might follow suit:

• Humanitarian workers could be arrested or sued abroad.
• Food deliveries, refugee camps, and health clinics could become political battlegrounds.
• Trust in international humanitarian neutrality could erode irreparably.

The very concept of neutral humanitarian space — essential in war zones from Yemen to Sudan to Myanmar — may be endangered.

Final Reflection

The Trump administration’s move against UNRWA signals a tectonic shift in how the United States sees its obligations to the international order.

For Palestinians in Gaza, it could mean the loss of their last lifeline.

For the world, it could mean the end of an era where humanitarian principles were insulated — at least nominally — from the brutal currents of politics and war.

As courts, diplomats, and aid workers scramble to respond, one thing is clear:
A new, more dangerous world for humanitarian aid is already taking shape.

More on US News

U.S. Revokes UNRWA U.S. Revokes UNRWA U.S. Revokes UNRWA