Representative Stefanik Calls for Investigation into Doctors Without Borders Over Alleged Hamas Support
In a significant development on Capitol Hill, Representative Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) has formally requested Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch an investigation into Doctors Without Borders (MSF) under the Anti-Terrorism Act. The request, detailed in a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital, accuses the international medical humanitarian organization of effectively supporting Hamas through its media activities and criticisms of U.S.-backed aid efforts in Gaza. Stefanik claims MSF has engaged in a “media offensive” against the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), going as far as accusing the foundation of “orchestrated killing.” The congresswoman argues these attacks mirror Hamas propaganda and could undermine what she describes as “the only large-scale humanitarian food operation currently working in Gaza.” This accusation comes against the backdrop of GHF having distributed 167 million meals to Gaza residents since May, while the United Nations reports that less than 18% of its own aid has reached intended recipients due to theft and armed looting.
At the heart of Stefanik’s allegations is the claim that MSF may be violating the Anti-Terrorism Act by “using its platform and resources to amplify Hamas-aligned disinformation.” The congresswoman specifically points to provisions in the law that prohibit individuals or organizations from providing material support to designated terrorist groups, including through propaganda activities. Stefanik argues that MSF’s actions and communications reveal a concerning pattern that suggests the organization “may cross well into unlawful activity” through its statements and positions regarding the conflict. This raises serious questions about whether a humanitarian organization’s advocacy work and public statements could potentially be interpreted as providing indirect support to a designated terrorist organization, setting up what could become a contentious legal and ethical debate about the boundaries of humanitarian speech in conflict zones.
The letter outlines several specific examples that Stefanik believes demonstrate MSF’s lack of neutrality in the Gaza conflict. She notes that the organization “has made no reference to hostages illegally held by Hamas in Gaza” and has not “campaigned for them to receive medical treatment.” To illustrate her point, Stefanik describes several hostages with specific medical needs, including one being treated for cancer before October 7, another who lost a hand during a grenade explosion at the Nova festival, and a third who was kidnapped while nine months pregnant and subsequently gave birth while in captivity. Stefanik argues that MSF’s failure to include these cases in its humanitarian advocacy reveals a troubling bias. These examples serve to personalize the congressman’s concerns and highlight what she perceives as a selective approach to humanitarian concern that favors one side of the conflict.
Further bolstering her case, Stefanik points to what she terms “extremist actions and rhetoric” from MSF staff members that have generated criticism of the organization. One particularly concerning incident involved MSF lamenting the death of a staff member killed in Gaza in June 2024, whom the Israel Defense Forces later identified as a rocket expert for Palestinian Islamic Jihad. In another instance, Stefanik cites a report from French publication Le Journal du Dimanche from March 2024, which claimed an MSF staffer publicly called for Palestinians to “fight and die as martyrs.” These allegations, if substantiated, would raise serious questions about the vetting processes within MSF and whether the organization has been infiltrated by individuals with extremist views or connections to terrorist organizations, potentially compromising its stated mission of neutral humanitarian assistance.
The representative’s concerns extend beyond potential terrorism connections to questions about MSF’s nonprofit status. As a registered 501(c)(3) organization in the United States, MSF operates under “strict prohibitions” regarding certain types of political activities. Stefanik asks Attorney General Bondi to review MSF’s “political attacks” and consider referring the group to the Internal Revenue Service if violations are found. This aspect of Stefanik’s complaint touches on the complex regulatory framework governing nonprofit organizations in the U.S., particularly regarding political activity limitations and the potential consequences of crossing those boundaries. For an international organization like MSF, which relies heavily on charitable donations and tax-exempt status across multiple countries, such an investigation could have significant operational and financial implications.
In her concluding remarks, Stefanik emphasizes the gravity of her request, stating, “This is not a matter of routine oversight. It is a matter of national security, the protection of U.S. taxpayers and donors, and the defense of legitimate humanitarian organizations in one of the most dangerous conflict zones in the world.” She invokes President Trump’s clear stance against support for terrorist organizations “in any form” and calls for the same “clarity and resolve” in this case. The letter’s conclusion frames the issue as one that transcends ordinary oversight concerns and positions it within broader national security interests and principles. At the time of the Fox News Digital report, MSF had not responded to questions about Stefanik’s allegations, leaving open the question of how the organization might defend itself against these serious accusations and what impact this high-profile scrutiny might have on its ongoing humanitarian operations in Gaza and elsewhere.
