SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman attends an event in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on December 14, 2021. (Photo: Royal Court of Saudi Arabia/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
5 Things Biden Should Do to 'Re-evaluate' Saudi Relations
Failure to respond to the Kingdom's slights would reinforce the perception that Washington is a mere oil dependent, susceptible to demands.
Oct 13, 2022
The White House has stated that it will "re-evaluate" Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia following the announcement that the Saudis and the rest of the OPEC+ oil cartel will cut oil production by two million barrels per day. The production cut will drive up the cost of fuel just weeks before next month's midterm elections, and critics have characterized the move as effectively constituting election interference.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it.
While Saudi Arabia is free to pursue its own interests in hiking oil prices, this sudden and drastic cut does not reflect the behavior the United States can reasonably expect from a partner, especially one that relies so heavily on the U.S. for security assistance and protection.
Yet Riyadh believes that it has the upper hand, as demonstrated by an op-ed published by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's media adviser, Turki Aldakhil. His piece details how Saudi Arabia could hurt the U.S., including by pricing oil in Chinese yuan rather than dollars and halting the purchase of U.S.-made weapons and other military equipment. The op-ed can be reasonably understood as reflecting MBS' position.
A re-evaluation of the U.S.-Saudi relationship is clearly in order, as President Biden appears to have finally recognized. Failure to respond would reinforce MBS' perception that America's dependence on Saudi oil renders Washington powerless to resist his demands and will thus fuel more reckless Saudi conduct.
How might the U.S. go about such a re-evaluation? Biden has several options at his disposal, all of which can help create a healthier balance in the bilateral relationship. None of these steps are designed to rupture the relationship. Saudi Arabia is an important country, and the U.S. can benefit from positive ties with the kingdom. But the current relationship is anything but positive, and it is inaction on Biden's part that makes a full breakdown of U.S.-Saudi ties more, rather than less, likely.
One: Freeze all U.S. security support to Saudi Arabia.
Freezing support would make clear to the Saudis that U.S. partnership is not unconditional, while also allowing cooperation to resume if Riyadh decided to again act as a partner.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez has already called for such a freeze, "including any arms sales and security cooperation." Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Richard Blumenthal have also proposed bipartisan legislation to pause all arms sales and military supplies. Such measures could be useful. However, merely pausing and then resuming security cooperation may prove inadequate to change Saudi behavior.
Two: Pass the Yemen War Powers Resolution in Congress.
Passage of the Yemen War Powers Resolution would achieve two objectives simultaneously: it would both signal U.S. discontent with the Saudi decision on reducing oil production and cripple the Saudis' ability to bomb and blockade Yemen, finally ending U.S. complicity in that devastating conflict, one of President Biden's earliest foreign policy commitments.
Members of Congress have introduced a bill that would end all U.S. military support for Riyadh's military intervention in Yemen; however it has not yet been brought up for a vote.
Three: Withdraw U.S. troops and military assets from the Kingdom and the region.
About 3,000 U.S. troops are based in Saudi Arabia, while the UAE hosts around 2,000 more.
Reps. Tom Malinowski, Sean Casten, and Susan Wild plan to introduce a bill to require the removal of U.S. troops and missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, another key OPEC+ member that also relies on Washington for national defense.
The bill is similar to one introduced by Republicans in 2020, when Trump also sought to pressure the Saudis to increase oil production. However, it was Trump who sent American servicemembers back to Saudi Arabia in 2019 after a 16-year absence: in response to concerns that the presence of U.S. soldiers was aiding terrorist recruitment across the region, the Pentagon withdrew them from the kingdom.
Clearly, the removal of U.S. troops from the Kingdom did not lead to the downfall of the House of Saud. Losing the security provided by the presence of U.S. troops and missile defenses would remind Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE, that they remain dependent on Washington's good will. The Saudis and Emiratis are likely to turn to China or Russia, but, although Beijing and Moscow may sell them weapons, they will be unable to provide the same security. Preoccupied by its faltering invasion of Ukraine, Russia cannot do so, and China does not see such a move as in its interests.
Four: Enforce the Leahy Laws regarding the transfer of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
At present, the U.S. does not consider Saudi Arabia's human rights violations to constitute a violation of the Leahy laws that prohibit the transfer of military assistance to states that engage in gross human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape. However, credible allegations of such behavior by the Saudi state, including the 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, would arguably justify the application of the Leahy Laws to Saudi Arabia. Enforcing U.S. law would pressure Saudi Arabia to address its worst human rights violations while also underlining the Kingdom's reliance on U.S. security cooperation.
Five: Increase investment in alternative energy to reduce U.S. dependence on oil.
Although oil will remain important to the global economy for the foreseeable future, the impact of the price of gasoline on American politics reflects a massive vulnerability. By investing more heavily in alternatives, like electric vehicles, public transportation, and less car-dependent communities, the outcomes of American elections could no longer be swayed by oil exporters. This would also help shield American elections from interference by foreign actors.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it. If the Saudis continue to insist on behaving in a manner that not only undermines U.S. objectives in Ukraine but also threatens to undermine the American democratic process, Washington must cease pretending that Riyadh is a friend. Only by taking strong action can the U.S. re-establish a functional relationship with Riyadh, one based on shared interests and mutual respect.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Responsible Statecraft
Trita Parsi
Trita Parsi is Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute and an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is author of "Losing an Enemy - Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy"; "A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran"; and "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States."
Annelle Sheline
Annelle Sheline is a Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute. Her research focuses on religious authority in the Middle East, specifically the intersection of religious and national identities in the Arab monarchies. She analyzes the implications of combating violent extremism and encouraging religious tolerance in Jordan, Morocco, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In addition to academic writing, her public commentary has appeared in The Washington Post, The Global Post and Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.
The White House has stated that it will "re-evaluate" Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia following the announcement that the Saudis and the rest of the OPEC+ oil cartel will cut oil production by two million barrels per day. The production cut will drive up the cost of fuel just weeks before next month's midterm elections, and critics have characterized the move as effectively constituting election interference.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it.
While Saudi Arabia is free to pursue its own interests in hiking oil prices, this sudden and drastic cut does not reflect the behavior the United States can reasonably expect from a partner, especially one that relies so heavily on the U.S. for security assistance and protection.
Yet Riyadh believes that it has the upper hand, as demonstrated by an op-ed published by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's media adviser, Turki Aldakhil. His piece details how Saudi Arabia could hurt the U.S., including by pricing oil in Chinese yuan rather than dollars and halting the purchase of U.S.-made weapons and other military equipment. The op-ed can be reasonably understood as reflecting MBS' position.
A re-evaluation of the U.S.-Saudi relationship is clearly in order, as President Biden appears to have finally recognized. Failure to respond would reinforce MBS' perception that America's dependence on Saudi oil renders Washington powerless to resist his demands and will thus fuel more reckless Saudi conduct.
How might the U.S. go about such a re-evaluation? Biden has several options at his disposal, all of which can help create a healthier balance in the bilateral relationship. None of these steps are designed to rupture the relationship. Saudi Arabia is an important country, and the U.S. can benefit from positive ties with the kingdom. But the current relationship is anything but positive, and it is inaction on Biden's part that makes a full breakdown of U.S.-Saudi ties more, rather than less, likely.
One: Freeze all U.S. security support to Saudi Arabia.
Freezing support would make clear to the Saudis that U.S. partnership is not unconditional, while also allowing cooperation to resume if Riyadh decided to again act as a partner.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez has already called for such a freeze, "including any arms sales and security cooperation." Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Richard Blumenthal have also proposed bipartisan legislation to pause all arms sales and military supplies. Such measures could be useful. However, merely pausing and then resuming security cooperation may prove inadequate to change Saudi behavior.
Two: Pass the Yemen War Powers Resolution in Congress.
Passage of the Yemen War Powers Resolution would achieve two objectives simultaneously: it would both signal U.S. discontent with the Saudi decision on reducing oil production and cripple the Saudis' ability to bomb and blockade Yemen, finally ending U.S. complicity in that devastating conflict, one of President Biden's earliest foreign policy commitments.
Members of Congress have introduced a bill that would end all U.S. military support for Riyadh's military intervention in Yemen; however it has not yet been brought up for a vote.
Three: Withdraw U.S. troops and military assets from the Kingdom and the region.
About 3,000 U.S. troops are based in Saudi Arabia, while the UAE hosts around 2,000 more.
Reps. Tom Malinowski, Sean Casten, and Susan Wild plan to introduce a bill to require the removal of U.S. troops and missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, another key OPEC+ member that also relies on Washington for national defense.
The bill is similar to one introduced by Republicans in 2020, when Trump also sought to pressure the Saudis to increase oil production. However, it was Trump who sent American servicemembers back to Saudi Arabia in 2019 after a 16-year absence: in response to concerns that the presence of U.S. soldiers was aiding terrorist recruitment across the region, the Pentagon withdrew them from the kingdom.
Clearly, the removal of U.S. troops from the Kingdom did not lead to the downfall of the House of Saud. Losing the security provided by the presence of U.S. troops and missile defenses would remind Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE, that they remain dependent on Washington's good will. The Saudis and Emiratis are likely to turn to China or Russia, but, although Beijing and Moscow may sell them weapons, they will be unable to provide the same security. Preoccupied by its faltering invasion of Ukraine, Russia cannot do so, and China does not see such a move as in its interests.
Four: Enforce the Leahy Laws regarding the transfer of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
At present, the U.S. does not consider Saudi Arabia's human rights violations to constitute a violation of the Leahy laws that prohibit the transfer of military assistance to states that engage in gross human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape. However, credible allegations of such behavior by the Saudi state, including the 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, would arguably justify the application of the Leahy Laws to Saudi Arabia. Enforcing U.S. law would pressure Saudi Arabia to address its worst human rights violations while also underlining the Kingdom's reliance on U.S. security cooperation.
Five: Increase investment in alternative energy to reduce U.S. dependence on oil.
Although oil will remain important to the global economy for the foreseeable future, the impact of the price of gasoline on American politics reflects a massive vulnerability. By investing more heavily in alternatives, like electric vehicles, public transportation, and less car-dependent communities, the outcomes of American elections could no longer be swayed by oil exporters. This would also help shield American elections from interference by foreign actors.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it. If the Saudis continue to insist on behaving in a manner that not only undermines U.S. objectives in Ukraine but also threatens to undermine the American democratic process, Washington must cease pretending that Riyadh is a friend. Only by taking strong action can the U.S. re-establish a functional relationship with Riyadh, one based on shared interests and mutual respect.
Trita Parsi
Trita Parsi is Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute and an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign politics, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He is author of "Losing an Enemy - Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy"; "A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran"; and "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States."
Annelle Sheline
Annelle Sheline is a Research Fellow at the Quincy Institute. Her research focuses on religious authority in the Middle East, specifically the intersection of religious and national identities in the Arab monarchies. She analyzes the implications of combating violent extremism and encouraging religious tolerance in Jordan, Morocco, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. In addition to academic writing, her public commentary has appeared in The Washington Post, The Global Post and Georgetown University's Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.
The White House has stated that it will "re-evaluate" Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia following the announcement that the Saudis and the rest of the OPEC+ oil cartel will cut oil production by two million barrels per day. The production cut will drive up the cost of fuel just weeks before next month's midterm elections, and critics have characterized the move as effectively constituting election interference.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it.
While Saudi Arabia is free to pursue its own interests in hiking oil prices, this sudden and drastic cut does not reflect the behavior the United States can reasonably expect from a partner, especially one that relies so heavily on the U.S. for security assistance and protection.
Yet Riyadh believes that it has the upper hand, as demonstrated by an op-ed published by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's media adviser, Turki Aldakhil. His piece details how Saudi Arabia could hurt the U.S., including by pricing oil in Chinese yuan rather than dollars and halting the purchase of U.S.-made weapons and other military equipment. The op-ed can be reasonably understood as reflecting MBS' position.
A re-evaluation of the U.S.-Saudi relationship is clearly in order, as President Biden appears to have finally recognized. Failure to respond would reinforce MBS' perception that America's dependence on Saudi oil renders Washington powerless to resist his demands and will thus fuel more reckless Saudi conduct.
How might the U.S. go about such a re-evaluation? Biden has several options at his disposal, all of which can help create a healthier balance in the bilateral relationship. None of these steps are designed to rupture the relationship. Saudi Arabia is an important country, and the U.S. can benefit from positive ties with the kingdom. But the current relationship is anything but positive, and it is inaction on Biden's part that makes a full breakdown of U.S.-Saudi ties more, rather than less, likely.
One: Freeze all U.S. security support to Saudi Arabia.
Freezing support would make clear to the Saudis that U.S. partnership is not unconditional, while also allowing cooperation to resume if Riyadh decided to again act as a partner.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez has already called for such a freeze, "including any arms sales and security cooperation." Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Richard Blumenthal have also proposed bipartisan legislation to pause all arms sales and military supplies. Such measures could be useful. However, merely pausing and then resuming security cooperation may prove inadequate to change Saudi behavior.
Two: Pass the Yemen War Powers Resolution in Congress.
Passage of the Yemen War Powers Resolution would achieve two objectives simultaneously: it would both signal U.S. discontent with the Saudi decision on reducing oil production and cripple the Saudis' ability to bomb and blockade Yemen, finally ending U.S. complicity in that devastating conflict, one of President Biden's earliest foreign policy commitments.
Members of Congress have introduced a bill that would end all U.S. military support for Riyadh's military intervention in Yemen; however it has not yet been brought up for a vote.
Three: Withdraw U.S. troops and military assets from the Kingdom and the region.
About 3,000 U.S. troops are based in Saudi Arabia, while the UAE hosts around 2,000 more.
Reps. Tom Malinowski, Sean Casten, and Susan Wild plan to introduce a bill to require the removal of U.S. troops and missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, another key OPEC+ member that also relies on Washington for national defense.
The bill is similar to one introduced by Republicans in 2020, when Trump also sought to pressure the Saudis to increase oil production. However, it was Trump who sent American servicemembers back to Saudi Arabia in 2019 after a 16-year absence: in response to concerns that the presence of U.S. soldiers was aiding terrorist recruitment across the region, the Pentagon withdrew them from the kingdom.
Clearly, the removal of U.S. troops from the Kingdom did not lead to the downfall of the House of Saud. Losing the security provided by the presence of U.S. troops and missile defenses would remind Saudi Arabia, as well as the UAE, that they remain dependent on Washington's good will. The Saudis and Emiratis are likely to turn to China or Russia, but, although Beijing and Moscow may sell them weapons, they will be unable to provide the same security. Preoccupied by its faltering invasion of Ukraine, Russia cannot do so, and China does not see such a move as in its interests.
Four: Enforce the Leahy Laws regarding the transfer of weapons to Saudi Arabia.
At present, the U.S. does not consider Saudi Arabia's human rights violations to constitute a violation of the Leahy laws that prohibit the transfer of military assistance to states that engage in gross human rights violations, including torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance, and rape. However, credible allegations of such behavior by the Saudi state, including the 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, would arguably justify the application of the Leahy Laws to Saudi Arabia. Enforcing U.S. law would pressure Saudi Arabia to address its worst human rights violations while also underlining the Kingdom's reliance on U.S. security cooperation.
Five: Increase investment in alternative energy to reduce U.S. dependence on oil.
Although oil will remain important to the global economy for the foreseeable future, the impact of the price of gasoline on American politics reflects a massive vulnerability. By investing more heavily in alternatives, like electric vehicles, public transportation, and less car-dependent communities, the outcomes of American elections could no longer be swayed by oil exporters. This would also help shield American elections from interference by foreign actors.
The Biden administration has realized, however belatedly, that the U.S.-Saudi relationship is broken and that appeasing Riyadh will not fix it. If the Saudis continue to insist on behaving in a manner that not only undermines U.S. objectives in Ukraine but also threatens to undermine the American democratic process, Washington must cease pretending that Riyadh is a friend. Only by taking strong action can the U.S. re-establish a functional relationship with Riyadh, one based on shared interests and mutual respect.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Report Warns of Anti-Family Pronatalist Movement's Growing Influence on Trump White House
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said one advocate.
Aug 13, 2025
The Trump administration's push for Americans to have more children has been well documented, from Vice President JD Vance's insults aimed at "childless cat ladies" to officials' meetings with "pronatalist" advocates who want to boost U.S. birth rates, which have been declining since 2007.
But a report released by the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) on Wednesday details how the methods the White House have reportedly considered to convince Americans to procreate moremay be described by the far right as "pro-family," but are actually being pushed by a eugenicist, misogynist movement that has little interest in making it any easier to raise a family in the United States.
The proposals include bestowing a "National Medal of Motherhood" on women who have more than six children, giving a $5,000 "baby bonus" to new parents, and prioritizing federal projects in areas with high birth rates.
"Underneath shiny motherhood medals and promises of baby bonuses is a movement intent on elevating white supremacist ideology and forcing women out of the workplace," said Emily Martin, chief program officer of the National Women's Law Center.
The report describes how "Silicon Valley tech elites" and traditional conservatives who oppose abortion rights and even a woman's right to work outside the home have converged to push for "preserving the traditional family structure while encouraging women to have a lot of children."
With pronatalists often referring to "declining genetic quality" in the U.S. and promoting the idea that Americans must produce "good quality children," in the words of evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman, the pronatalist movement "is built on racist, sexist, and anti-immigrant ideologies."
If conservatives are concerned about population loss in the U.S., the report points out, they would "make it easier for immigrants to come to the United States to live and work. More immigrants mean more workers, which would address some of the economic concerns raised by declining birth rates."
But pronatalists "only want to see certain populations increase (i.e., white people), and there are many immigrants who don't fit into that narrow qualification."
The report, titled "Baby Bonuses and Motherhood Medals: Why We Shouldn't Trust the Pronatalist Movement," describes how President Donald Trump has enlisted a "pronatalist army" that's been instrumental both in pushing a virulently anti-immigrant, mass deportation agenda and in demanding that more straight couples should marry and have children, as the right-wing policy playbook Project 2025 demands.
Trump's former adviser and benefactor, billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, has spoken frequently about the need to prevent a collapse of U.S. society and civilization by raising birth rates, and has pushed misinformation fearmongering about birth control.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy proposed rewarding areas with high birth rates by prioritizing infrastructure projects, and like Vance has lobbed insults at single women while also deriding the use of contraception.
The report was released days after CNN detailed the close ties the Trump administration has with self-described Christian nationalist pastor Doug Wilson, who heads the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, preaches that women should not vote, and suggested in an interview with correspondent Pamela Brown that women's primary function is birthing children, saying they are "the kind of people that people come out of."
Wilson has ties to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose children attend schools founded by the pastor and who shared the video online with the tagline of Wilson's church, "All of Christ for All of Life."
But the NWLC noted, no amount of haranguing women over their relationship status, plans for childbearing, or insistence that they are primarily meant to stay at home with "four or five children," as Wilson said, can reverse the impact the Trump administration's policies have had on families.
"While the Trump administration claims to be pursuing a pro-baby agenda, their actions tell a different story," the report notes. "Rather than advancing policies that would actually support families—like lowering costs, expanding access to housing and food, or investing in child care—they've prioritized dismantling basic need supports, rolling back longstanding civil rights protections, and ripping away people's bodily autonomy."
The report was published weeks after Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law—making pregnancy more expensive and more dangerous for millions of low-income women by slashing Medicaid funding and "endangering the 42 million women and children" who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for their daily meals.
While demanding that women have more children, said the NWLC, Trump has pushed an "anti-women, anti-family agenda."
Martin said that unlike the pronatalist movement, "a real pro-family agenda would include protecting reproductive healthcare, investing in childcare as a public good, promoting workplace policies that enable parents to succeed, and ensuring that all children have the resources that they need to thrive not just at birth, but throughout their lives."
"The administration's deep hostility toward these pro-family policies," said Martin, "tells you all that you need to know about pronatalists' true motives.”
Rights Group Pushes Delaware AG to Revoke Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's Corporate Charter
A Center for Constitutional Rights lawyer called on Kathy Jennings to "use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza."
Aug 13, 2025
A leading U.S. legal advocacy group on Wednesday urged Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings to pursue revoking the corporate charter of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, whose aid distribution points in the embattled Palestinian enclave have been the sites of near-daily massacres in which thousands of Palestinians have reportedly been killed or wounded.
Last week, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urgently requested a meeting with Jennings, a Democrat, whom the group asserted has a legal obligation to file suit in the state's Chancery Court to seek revocation of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's (GHF) charter because the purported charity "is complicit in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide."
CCR said Wednesday that Jennings "has neither responded" to the group's request "nor publicly addressed the serious claims raised against the Delaware-registered entity."
"GHF woefully fails to adhere to fundamental humanitarian principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence and has proven to be an opportunistic and obsequious entity masquerading as a humanitarian organization," CCR asserted. "Since the start of its operations in late May, at least 1,400 Palestinians have died seeking aid, with at least 859 killed at or near GHF sites, which it operates in close coordination with the Israeli government and U.S. private military contractors."
One of those contractors, former U.S. Army Green Beret Col. Anthony Aguilar, quit his job and blew the whistle on what he said he saw while working at GHF aid sites.
"What I saw on the sites, around the sites, to and from the sites, can be described as nothing but war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of international law," Aguilar told Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman earlier this month. "This is not hyperbole. This is not platitudes or drama. This is the truth... The sites were designed to lure, bait aid, and kill."
Israel Defense Forces officers and soldiers have admitted to receiving orders to open fire on Palestinian aid-seekers with live bullets and artillery rounds, even when the civilians posed no security threat.
"It is against this backdrop that [President Donald] Trump's State Department approved a $30 million United States Agency for International Development grant for GHF," CCR noted. "In so doing, the State Department exempted it from the audit usually required for new USAID grantees."
"It also waived mandatory counterterrorism and anti-fraud safeguards and overrode vetting mechanisms, including 58 internal objections to GHF's application," the group added. "The Center for Constitutional Rights has submitted a [Freedom of Information Act] request seeking information on the administration's funding of GHF."
CCR continued:
The letter to Jennings opens a new front in the effort to hold GHF accountable. The Center for Constitutional Rights letter provides extensive evidence that, far from alleviating suffering in Gaza, GHF is contributing to the forced displacement, illegal killing, and genocide of Palestinians, while serving as a fig leaf for Israel's continued denial of access to food and water. Given this, Jennings has not only the authority, but the obligation to investigate GHF to determine if it abused its charter by engaging in unlawful activity. She may then file suit with the Court of Chancery, which has the authority to revoke GHF's charter.
CCR's August 5 letter notes that Jennings has previously exercised such authority. In 2019, she filed suit to dissolve shell companies affiliated with former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Richard Gates after they pleaded guilty to money laundering and other crimes.
"Attorney General Jennings has the power to significantly change the course of history and save lives by taking action to dissolve GHF," said CCR attorney Adina Marx-Arpadi. "We call on her to use her power to stop this dangerous entity that is masquerading as a charitable organization while furthering death and violence in Gaza, and to do so without delay."
CCR's request follows a call earlier this month by a group of United Nations experts for the "immediate dismantling" of GHF, as well as "holding it and its executives accountable and allowing experienced and humanitarian actors from the U.N. and civil society alike to take back the reins of managing and distributing lifesaving aid."
As Deadline Looms, Advocates Call Plastics Treaty Draft 'Nothing Short of a Betrayal'
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," said the CEO of the Environmental Justice Foundation.
Aug 13, 2025
Multiple nations, as well as climate and environmental activists, are expressing dismay at the current state of a potential treaty to curb global plastics pollution.
As The Associated Press reported on Wednesday, negotiators of the treaty are discussing a new draft that would contain no restrictions on plastic production or on the chemicals used in plastics. This draft would adopt the approach favored by many big oil-producing nations who have argued against limits on plastic production and have instead pushed for measures such as better design, recycling, and reuse.
This new draft drew the ire of several nations in Europe, Africa, and Latin America, who all said that it was too weak in addressing the real harms being done by plastic pollution.
"Let me be clear—this is not acceptable for future generations," said Erin Silsbe, the representative for Canada.
According to a report from Health Policy Watch, Panama delegate Juan Carlos Monterrey got a round of applause from several other delegates in the room when he angrily denounced the new draft.
"Our red lines, and the red lines of the majority of countries represented in this room, were not only expunged, they were spat on, and they were burned," he fumed.
Several advocacy organizations were even more scathing in their assessments.
Eirik Lindebjerg, the global plastics policy adviser for WWF, bluntly said that "this is not a treaty" but rather "a devastating blow to everyone here and all those around the world suffering day in and day out as a result of plastic pollution."
"It lacks the bare minimum of measures and accountability to actually be effective, with no binding global bans on harmful products and chemicals and no way for it to be strengthened over time," Lindebjerg continued. "What's more it does nothing to reflect the ambition and demands of the majority of people both within and outside the room. This is not what people came to Geneva for. After three years of negotiations, this is deeply concerning."
Steve Trent, the CEO and founder of the Environmental Justice Foundation, declared the new draft "nothing short of a betrayal" and encouraged delegates from around the world to roundly reject it.
"The process has been completely captured by swarms of fossil fuel lobbyists and shamefully weaponized by low-ambition countries," he said. "The failure now risks being total, with the text actively backsliding rather than improving."
According to the Center for International Environmental Law, at least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists registered for the talks in Switzerland, meaning they "outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the E.U."
Nicholas Mallos, vice president of Ocean Conservancy's ocean plastics program, similarly called the new draft "unacceptable" and singled out that the latest text scrubbed references to abandoned or discarded plastic fishing gear, commonly referred to as "ghost gear," which he described as "the deadliest form of plastic pollution to marine life."
"The science is clear: To reduce plastic pollution, we must make and use less plastic to begin with, so a treaty without reduction is a failed treaty," Mallos emphasized.
Most Popular