The U.S. government inadvertently sent $239 million to the Taliban in the wake of inadequate vetting procedures by the State Department.
According to the Leading Report, this funding has been funneled through development assistance meant to aid Afghanistan since 2021, exacerbating concerns over the Department’s ability to effectively prevent money from benefiting terrorist groups.
A disconcerting report from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) disclosed that the mishap stemmed from the Department of State's failure to properly vet the recipients of 29 grants.
The State Department’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) divisions were implicated in these lapses. These divisions are tasked with ensuring development assistance is allocated appropriately and not diverted to sanctioned entities like the Taliban.
Less than a year prior to SIGAR’s findings, reports surfaced that the Taliban had been establishing fake nonprofits to redirect millions of dollars in U.S. aid intended for Afghanistan. Such incidents underscored the vulnerabilities present in the financial distribution mechanisms.
SIGAR's investigation details how DRL and INL failed to adhere to counterterrorism partner vetting protocols. This non-compliance raises significant concerns regarding the allocation of U.S. taxpayer funds and the actual beneficiaries of these resources.
“Because DRL and INL could not demonstrate their compliance with State’s partner vetting requirements, there is an increased risk that terrorist and terrorist-affiliated individuals and entities may have illegally benefited from State spending in Afghanistan,” said the report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
The State Department’s vetting process is designed to identify prospective awardees with commendable business practices and to conduct thorough risk assessments. Despite having this system in place, it was reported that in over two dozen instances, the required procedures were not followed, nor were proper records maintained.
DRL failed to properly screen the recipients of seven awards, which totaled approximately $12 million. Simultaneously, the INL had documentation issues for 19 of its 22 awards, amounting to about $295 million.
The State Department acknowledged the failures. The INL cited reasons such as “employee turnover and the dissolution of the Afghanistan-Pakistan office” for not retaining necessary records. These admissions spur further concern regarding the Department’s oversight and accountability mechanisms.
Aside from creating fraudulent non-governmental organizations, the Taliban has also generated significant revenue through taxes, permit fees, and import duties. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which received $63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement, is also implicated by the association.
Furthermore, the United Nations received $1.6 billion in U.S. funding earmarked for Afghanistan, with a considerable fraction potentially benefiting the Taliban. Complications arise as the U.S. government does not mandate that the UN report on costs like taxes and fees incurred on American funds in Afghanistan. The SIGAR report stated:
As State continues to spend U.S. taxpayer funds on programs intended to benefit the Afghan people, it is critical that State knows who is actually benefiting from this assistance in order to prevent the aid from being diverted to the Taliban or other sanctioned parties, and to enable policymakers and other oversight authorities to better scrutinize the risks posed by State’s spending.
In conclusion, the U.S. government’s failure to properly vet development assistance recipients has inadvertently directed $239 million to the Taliban since 2021. This occurred due to lapses in the State Department's Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, as well as the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs divisions. Previous warnings about fraudulent nonprofits further highlight the vulnerabilities in these processes. Enhanced accountability and rigorous vetting are imperative to avert such oversights in the future.
