On Jan. 14, 2026, Nick Duffy, for NBC News, authored “Trump’s Gaza peace plan enters second phase.”
In the last paragraph, Duffy wrote that the entire strip was “still at risk of starvation, according to a report from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification [“IPC”], the world’s leading authority on food crises.”
However, on Jan. 5, 2026, a statement by the United Nations - itself a partner of the IPC mechanism - acknowledged that “100 per cent of basic food needs [have been] met” in Gaza. As of Jan. 15, 2026, not one major newspaper or network has reported this.
The UN just announced that 100% of Gaza’s food needs have been met.
This is a headline you won’t find in the BBC or the New York Times, which continue to lie and say that Israel is preventing humanitarian aid from entering the Gaza Strip. pic.twitter.com/oyFAW0US3Q
— Danny Danon 🇮🇱 דני דנון (@dannydanon) January 12, 2026
If the UN admission were not enough to cast significant doubt over the veracity of NBC’s claim, the word “starvation” appears neither in the Dec. 19, 2025, 57-page IPC Acute Food Insecurity Analysis from October 2025 – April 2026 nor in the IPC’s five-page ”Additional Considerations From the Famine Review Committee Relating to Gaza Analyses.” In the “IPC Global Initiative - Special Snapshot,” the word “starvation” is only used in a general information section about how to classify famine.
Even if NBC News accepts, uncritically, the reports and projections of the IPC, the IPC thankfully categorized only 5% of the population at IPC Phase 5 as of Nov. 30, 2025, and this number is predicted to be less than 1% for the projected period of Dec. 1, 2025 – April 15, 2026. Phase 5 is characterized by households experiencing extreme lack of food and starvation.
The IPC’s reports and famine declaration in Gaza during the war have also been seriously critiqued. The Center for Medical Integrity published, on Aug. 22, 2025, “Faking a Famine: Politicization & Propaganda,” wherein it detailed, among other things, how “IPC . . . misapplied . . . thresholds to imply famine, rel[ied] on problematic data sources and omitt[ed] key pre-war baselines, diverging from its own guidelines” and how IPC’s lack of both data sources and transparency undermined its credibility. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), in its analysis of the IPC’s famine determination, likewise determined “the [IPC] reached a very flawed conclusion while bending its own rules to the breaking point.”
Given the relatively small percentage of those at high risk and the projection that this number will reduce to less than 1%, the IPC’s own data combined with the UN’s recent admission demonstrates there is simply no support for the proposition that “the entire strip” is at risk of starvation.