Humanitarian aid is meant to be a lifeline for civilians caught in conflict, but a new warning suggests that a troubling amount of UK-funded assistance may be going somewhere else entirely.
A national security think tank says militant groups are quietly siphoning off hundreds of millions of pounds every year from aid schemes designed to help people survive war and displacement.
Claims That Terror Groups Are Tapping Into UK Aid
The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) says armed groups such as Hamas, the Houthis, and Boko Haram are exploiting aid systems and pocketing huge sums of money.
According to the think tank, as much as £300 million in UK aid each year could be ending up in the hands of extremists rather than civilians who desperately need support.
At the centre of the concern is Cash and Voucher Assistance (CVA), a system that provides people in crisis zones with cash or vouchers instead of physical supplies.
HJS describes the scheme as dangerously vulnerable to abuse and labels it “Britain’s biggest hidden aid scandal.”
How Cash Aid Becomes Easy Pickings in War Zones
The UK government does not publicly disclose how much of its aid budget is distributed as cash.
However, HJS estimates that between £225 million and £310 million was handed out as cash aid in 2024 alone.
While not all of that money would have reached militant groups, the report argues that a significant portion likely did.
The reason, according to HJS, is control. In many conflict zones, armed groups dominate markets, checkpoints, money-changers, transport routes, and supply chains.
Once cash enters these systems, militants are often able to take a cut before civilians ever see the benefit.
Inside the Report Cash to Terror
Andrew Fox, a senior research fellow at HJS and author of the report Cash to Terror, says the UK must urgently rethink how it delivers aid.
He argues that audits carried out in London mean very little if the reality on the ground is ignored.
Fox claims that in places like Gaza, Yemen, and Nigeria, extremist groups routinely skim money from aid flows.
He says Hamas-linked moneychangers can take as much as 40 per cent from every cash withdrawal, the Houthis impose taxes on aid trucks and markets, and Boko Haram extracts money through local taxation and transport routes.
According to Fox, this creates a dangerous situation where Britain risks unintentionally funding both sides of active conflicts.
Gaza, Yemen, and Nigeria Under the Spotlight
The report highlights several specific examples:
In Gaza, HJS claims that Hamas-linked moneychangers are taking between 20 and 40 per cent of the $42.5 million recently sent in aid.
It also alleges that civilians are sometimes forced to buy back stolen aid from Hamas-run markets.
In Yemen, which received around $161 million in aid vouchers last year, more than 10 per cent of food aid is said to have been stolen.
The Houthis are also accused of taxing traders and markets connected to aid distribution.
In Nigeria, where approximately $284 million in aid vouchers was distributed, militant groups are allegedly skimming money by taxing fishing, farming, livestock, and transport.
The report claims British-funded aid is moving through routes controlled by Boko Haram.
The Bigger Picture of Cash-Based Aid
Although the UK does not publish detailed figures on CVA spending, global aid trends suggest that about 18 to 22 per cent of humanitarian aid worldwide is delivered as cash.
That translates to roughly $7 to $10 billion every year.
In 2024, the UK provided £1.6 billion to UN agencies, many of which rely heavily on cash and voucher assistance.
HJS argues this makes transparency and oversight even more critical.
Calls for Transparency and Tougher Controls
The Henry Jackson Society is urging the UK government to be far more open about how much it spends on cash aid.
It also wants audits carried out directly in war zones, not just on paper.
The think tank is calling for aid to be suspended in areas controlled by proscribed terrorist organisations and says UN agencies and NGOs should tighten their controls or risk losing funding.
Government Pushback on the Findings
The Foreign Office has strongly rejected the report’s conclusions.
A spokesperson said the UK thoroughly vets all aid partners and continuously monitors programmes to ensure funds are used as intended.
What’s Next?
The report raises uncomfortable questions about how humanitarian aid is delivered in conflict zones and whether current systems are fit for purpose.
As pressure builds for greater transparency and accountability, the debate over cash aid, security risks, and civilian protection is likely far from over.
Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn