The Trump administration’s Department of Justice has requested that a U.S. court handling a massive lawsuit against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) filed by victims of the October 7 attack refrain from adjudicating UNWRA’s Motion to Dismiss based on immunity. The Trump administration’s request signals a potential major policy shift regarding victims’ ability to sue UN agencies in the U.S.and diverges from the approach taken by previous administrations. The Trump administration’s decision may impact pending claims against UNWRA and may open the door to future claims against UNWRA and other international organizations, as well.
Specifically, on June 24, 2024, families of victims of the October 7 terrorist attacks sued UNWRA in New York. Plaintiffs claim UNWRA aided and abetted Hamas in its brutal massacre and hostage-taking.
In particular, the plaintiffs claim UNRWA provided material support to Hamas, enabling its assault by allowing schools, hospitals, and administrative facilities to serve as weapons depots and operational bases. They argue UNWRA facilitated the construction of tunnels, bunkers, and command centers—some used to hold hostages. Additionally, they claim UNRWA concealed rocket launch sites within or near its properties, knowingly employed Hamas members who participated in the attack, channeled funds to support Hamas’ terror infrastructure, assisted in the detention and torture of hostages, and promoted anti-Israel and antisemitic indoctrination through its school curriculum.
Despite the gravity of their claims, the plaintiffs face a major legal obstacle: UNWRA’s potential immunity from prosecution of civil claims in U.S. courts. Under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (CPIUN), UN entities enjoy broad protection from lawsuits in U.S. courts.
In July and October 2024, the Biden Department of Justice urged dismissal, arguing that UNRWA, as part of the UN, is entitled to absolute immunity under CPIUN. UNRWA echoed that argument in its December motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs challenged the immunity shield, asserting that CPIUN immunity applies only to the UN itself—not to its agencies like UNRWA. They also contend that granting immunity here would violate jus cogens—fundamental unalterable principles of international law, such as the prohibition against terrorism, that supersede conflicting treaty obligations.
In a surprising move, the Department of Justice under the Trump administration pumped the brakes on its predecessors’ stance. On February 18, 2025, DOJ wrote to the court:
“The Government is currently reviewing the views expressed in the July 30 and October 18, 2024 letters. For that reason, the Government respectfully requests that the Court defer taking any action concerning the immunities of the defendants until the Government has had time to complete this review.”
Why This Matters
In the U.S., Executive interpretations on CPIUN immunity carry significant weight. While courts ultimately decide immunity issues, they give strong deference to the governments view—particularly in matters involving foreign policy. Accordingly, if the Trump administration supports lifting UNRWA’s immunity, contrary to the Biden administration, there is a chance that the court will allow this lawsuit to proceed. If the Court elects not to permit the claims to proceed notwithstanding the Trump administration’s stance, then the Plaintiffs may have strong grounds to appeal.
More broadly, if the Trump administration reverses course and asserts UNWRA is not immune, this policy shift may pave the way for other victims of October 7 to seek justice against UNWRA and other international organizations in U.S. courts.
Michael Ehrenstein is an attorney in Miami, Florida. With 35 years of experience as a business trial lawyer. He leads his firm Ehrenstein|Sager in high stakes international litigation and arbitration.
