Major global financial institutions, including UBS and Goldman Sachs, declined requests to open bank accounts for a controversial U.S.-backed foundation aimed at delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza. This move highlights the significant challenges aid organizations, especially those operating outside traditional channels in high-risk areas, face in navigating international finance and compliance requirements. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), established to bypass standard aid routes like the United Nations, sought these accounts in Switzerland to facilitate donations from outside the United States, sources close to the discussions revealed. However, their plans for a European foothold encountered substantial hurdles, ultimately leading GHF to abandon its swiss aspirations.
Banking Barriers for Gaza Aid
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) is a relatively new entity with a stated mission to deliver essential humanitarian supplies directly to civilians in Gaza. Backed by the United States and Israel, the foundation began its aid operations in May 2025. Its approach deliberately sidesteps established aid networks, a decision that has drawn both support and criticism. Seeking to expand its funding capabilities beyond the U.S., GHF explored setting up a presence in Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva is a major hub for international organizations and non-profits, making it a logical choice for facilitating global donations.
GHF reportedly initiated discussions with legal advisors and several banks, including banking giants UBS and Goldman Sachs, in the autumn preceding the July 2025 report. These talks centered on establishing the structure for a Swiss-based entity and securing the necessary bank accounts to support its international operations. Access to reputable international banking is crucial for any foundation, enabling transparent transactions, receiving donations, and managing funds efficiently. However, securing these relationships proved exceptionally difficult for GHF.
Why Big Banks Hesitated
According to sources familiar with the matter, both UBS and Goldman Sachs ultimately did not open accounts for GHF’s planned Swiss branch. UBS, approached in late 2024, declined to onboard GHF after conducting its internal due diligence process. This process typically involves thorough checks covering compliance, risk assessment, and evaluating potential reputational implications associated with a prospective client. Banking regulations globally require financial institutions to understand their clients’ activities and the source of their funds, particularly for entities operating in or related to conflict zones or high-risk jurisdictions.
Goldman Sachs also engaged in preliminary discussions with GHF regarding a Swiss account. Despite an undated briefing document from GHF reportedly mentioning a “verbal commitment” from Goldman Sachs, sources indicated that no account was ever established in Switzerland. Furthermore, Goldman Sachs reportedly has no banking relationship with GHF even within the United States. Spokespeople for both UBS and Goldman Sachs declined to comment on specific clients or potential client matters, citing standard banking confidentiality practices.
Transparency and Due Diligence Issues
A major stumbling block identified by one source involved a perceived lack of transparency regarding the sources of GHF’s funding. Banks are legally obligated to perform extensive “Know Your Customer” (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) checks. These require a clear understanding of where funds originate and how they will be used. Humanitarian finance can be complex, involving diverse donor bases and challenging operational environments, which increases the scrutiny applied by financial institutions.
GHF has not publicly disclosed detailed information about its finances or donor list. A spokesperson for the foundation stated they had discussed initial funding from Europe but maintained donor privacy. This lack of detailed public disclosure, while sometimes requested by donors, can pose significant challenges during bank due diligence processes, which prioritize full transparency regarding the flow of funds.
Shifting Focus and Internal Challenges
Ultimately, GHF decided to withdraw from its plans for a Swiss entity in May 2025. A spokesperson characterized this decision as a “strategic” choice to consolidate operations and be based solely in the United States. However, sources suggested that the decision followed a series of setbacks encountered during the planning phase for the Geneva branch.
These reported setbacks included difficulties in attracting sufficient donations and the resignation of founding members. Notably, GHF’s initial executive director, Jake Wood, reportedly resigned in May before the foundation’s official aid delivery launch. Wood cited an inability to abandon “the principles of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence,” suggesting potential disagreements over GHF’s operating model or affiliations.
GHF’s US Foothold and Funding
Despite the challenges faced internationally, GHF is incorporated in Delaware, United States. Filings indicate its establishment occurred in 2025. The foundation reportedly holds bank accounts with reputable U.S. institutions, including JPMorgan and Truist Bank. While JPMorgan and Truist representatives declined to comment on client relationships, a separate source confirmed GHF has a U.S. account with JPMorgan.
Funding for GHF includes contributions from private donors. Notably, the U.S. government reportedly made its first known financial contribution to GHF, providing $30 million, as reported on June 24, 2025. Following Jake Wood’s departure, GHF is now headed by Rev. Dr. Johnnie Moore, a former advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump. This leadership and funding profile underscore the foundation’s strong ties to the U.S. political establishment.
Controversies Surrounding GHF Operations in Gaza
GHF’s operational approach in Gaza has generated significant controversy within the humanitarian community. Unlike traditional aid organizations that often coordinate closely with the United Nations and operate under established humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence, GHF employs private U.S. security and logistics companies for aid delivery. This model has been sharply criticized by the UN and other aid groups.
The United Nations described GHF’s distribution plan as “inherently unsafe.” Critics argue that using private security and bypassing established coordination mechanisms contributes to a “militarization” of aid and can exacerbate chaos and risks on the ground. Reuters has reported instances of violence and disorder, including deadly shootings, occurring near GHF distribution sites in Gaza, which have reportedly been guarded by Israeli forces.
Other humanitarian groups have explicitly refused to work with GHF, questioning its perceived lack of neutrality given its backing and operating methods. They argue that this approach can undermine the fundamental principles guiding humanitarian action globally. GHF, however, maintains that it has successfully delivered aid from its sites without incident and strictly adheres to humanitarian principles. A spokesperson emphasized, “The Palestinian people of Gaza must be fed and GHF is the only organization that has demonstrated ability to deliver food assistance.”
Regulatory Issues in Switzerland
Adding to GHF’s difficulties, its planned Swiss entity faced regulatory hurdles. Switzerland’s Federal Supervisory Authority for Foundations (ESA) requires foundations registered in the country to hold capital in a Swiss bank account and have at least one board member residing there.
Filings from February 2025 reportedly indicated GHF’s Swiss entity had an initial endowment planned. However, a GHF spokesperson confirmed this capital contribution was never made. Furthermore, ESA informed Reuters that GHF had failed to provide necessary information regarding a Swiss bank account or the required statutory initial capital. As a result, ESA was reportedly taking steps as of early July 2025 to order the dissolution of GHF’s Swiss branch, further cementing the foundation’s strategic shift away from operating in Europe.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) and why is it controversial?
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) is a U.S.- and Israeli-backed organization formed in 2025 to deliver humanitarian aid directly to civilians in Gaza. It bypasses traditional aid channels, including the United Nations. GHF uses private U.S. security and logistics, which has led to criticism from the UN and other aid groups who question its neutrality and describe its methods as potentially unsafe and disruptive to established humanitarian principles and coordination efforts in the region.
Which banks were approached by GHF and where does it currently hold accounts?
GHF reportedly approached several banks in Switzerland, including major institutions like UBS and Goldman Sachs, in late 2024 and early 2025 to open accounts for a planned Swiss entity. Neither UBS nor Goldman Sachs ultimately opened accounts for GHF. The foundation decided to withdraw from its Swiss plans. GHF is incorporated in the United States (Delaware) and reportedly holds bank accounts with U.S.-based financial institutions, including JPMorgan and Truist Bank.
What challenges do humanitarian organizations like GHF face in securing international banking services?
Humanitarian organizations, particularly those operating in complex, high-risk conflict zones or using unconventional models, often face significant challenges securing banking services. Banks must comply with strict regulations regarding anti-money laundering (AML) and knowing their customer (KYC). This requires extensive due diligence into the organization’s funding sources, activities, and beneficiaries. Perceived lack of transparency, association with sanctioned or high-risk areas, and reputational concerns can lead banks to decline services, a process sometimes referred to as “de-risking,” even for legitimate aid groups.
Conclusion
The failure of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to secure banking relationships with major international banks like UBS and Goldman Sachs underscores the complex intersection of global finance, regulatory compliance, and humanitarian aid operations in volatile regions. While GHF asserts its operational effectiveness and strategic reasons for consolidating in the U.S., the reported difficulties in Switzerland and the regulatory action by ESA highlight the significant hurdles faced by entities operating outside established norms. The banking sector’s increasing focus on stringent due diligence and risk management means that aid groups, especially those with unique operating models or political affiliations, must navigate a challenging financial landscape to ensure the flow of critical funds to those in need.
Word Count Check: 1145 words
