The Biden administration is facing a complex internal debate over what to do with $687 million in assets forfeited by a French company after pleading guilty to aiding terrorist groups like the Islamic State. The dispute has created a rift between officials at the State Department and the Justice Department, with questions arising about the legal, moral, and policy implications of handling such a large sum of money.
The French company, Lafarge, admitted to paying off ISIS and another terrorist group in Syria to continue operating a plant in the region. As part of its plea deal, Lafarge’s successor company forfeited the assets, which are now at the center of the debate within the Biden administration.
One point of contention is whether some of the money should be used to help international victims of ISIS, many of whom are still in Syria or are refugees in the Middle East. Additionally, a group of ISIS victims now living in the United States, represented by prominent human rights lawyer Amal Clooney and former Biden administration official Lee Wolosky, are also seeking a share of the assets.
While no decisions have been made yet, the White House and National Security Council have begun to address the issue, raising the stakes of the internal conflict. The Justice Department and State Department have not commented on the matter.
The debate highlights the challenges of determining how to allocate such a significant amount of money that has not been appropriated by Congress for a specific purpose. While some advocate for using the funds to compensate victims of ISIS, others question the executive branch’s authority to unilaterally decide how to spend the money.
As the internal deliberations continue, the fate of the $687 million remains uncertain, with various stakeholders pushing for different outcomes. The complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding the case underscore the difficulties of navigating the aftermath of corporate involvement with terrorist organizations.
