In a landmark decision that could reshape the legal landscape for victims of the October 7 attacks, the Trump administration proclaimed that UNRWA (the United Nations Relief and Works Agency) has no immunity from lawsuits in the United States. This marks a sharp revocation of the Biden administration’s stance, which asserted UNRWA was protected from legal action in American courts.
The Trump administration’s move carries immediate consequences for plaintiffs in the high-profile lawsuit filed by the family of Tamar Kedem Simantov and other families against UNRWA. The families allege that UNRWA played a central role in facilitating Hamas’ atrocities on October 7, claiming that UNRWA staff participated directly in the massacre, helped conceal hostages, and allowed agency facilities to be used for weapon storage and attack planning. The lawsuit paints UNRWA as an active collaborator with Hamas, with some plaintiffs further alleging that UNRWA employees assisted in building tunnels and military infrastructure. If these claims are substantiated, they could amount to UNRWA’s complicity in war crimes.
Previously, UNRWA had sought dismissal of the lawsuit, citing immunity under international law, a position fully supported by the Biden administration. According to long-standing U.S. practice, the UN and its agencies have traditionally been shielded from litigation in American courts under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Had this defense been accepted by the Court, the Kedem Simantov and other families case would have been dismissed at this early stage.
However, on April 24, 2025, the Trump administration formally submitted a letter to the court stating that UNRWA is not entitled to immunity because it operates as a specialized agency rather than subsidiary organ of the United Nations. Because UNRWA operates independently, it cannot benefit from the UN’s immunity, and it must answer the Plaintiffs’ October 7th allegations in court. If the court adopts the Trump administration’s position, l the plaintiffs will conduct discovery, unearthing testimony, documents, and communications, highlighting a close connection between UNWRA and the horrors of the attack.
Even if the court ultimately dismisses the lawsuit, the plaintiffs have gained a powerful basis for appeal: a shift in the official position of the U.S. government—an exceptionally rare and influential development—could weigh heavily in appellate review. Either way, the Trump administration’s intervention has injected new life into a lawsuit that once appeared weak, at best..
Broader Legal and Diplomatic Ramifications
The implications of this decision extend well beyond the specific lawsuit at hand. If UNRWA is stripped of immunity, victims of other terror attacks—such as hostages held in UN facilities—could pursue similar claims. Such lawsuits would expose UNWRA and other specialized agencies of the UN to unprecedented scrutiny..
Diplomatically, the decision could strain U.S.-UN relations and expose other UN bodies, including the World Health Organization, to legal vulnerabilities. From Israel’s perspective, the move represents a potential breakthrough, reinforcing long-standing criticisms of UNRWA’s alleged support for Palestinian terrorism.
The Trump administration’s decision is part of a broader effort to redefine U.S. foreign policy and challenge the entrenched norms of multilateral institutions. For terror victims, it creates a new pathway for justice through American courts. Even if the Kedem Simantov family’s lawsuit does not prevail, the Trump administration has already succeeded in challenging the legal protections that have shielded UN agencies for decades. This bold move could pave the way for many victims of terrorism to finally have their voices heard—and to hold UN agencies accountable in courts of law.
