This working paper examines the complex dynamics between civil society, voluntary relief organizations, and the US Congress during the Biafra crisis (1967–1970).

It investigates how grassroots advocacy and moral imperatives influenced the US Congress and public opinion, ultimately shaping the dynamics of humanitarian aid. Relief agencies employed moralistic discourses to garner support and donations, while members of Congress often used appeals for aid as a point of departure for making policy proposals, reshaping the landscape of aid. Initiatives that maintained a pro-relief posture were warmly embraced by legislators, in contrast to groups which were involved in political advocacy. At the same time, fundraising and political discourses constructed Biafran relief as an issue related to domestic concerns.

The paper also situates the Biafran experience within the broader context of expressive humanitarianism, and underscores the evolving role of moral discourse in mobilizing public sentiment and political action, in a process in which media, celebrity advocacy, and civil engagement played crucial roles. By evaluating the implications of public awareness and congressional pressure on US relief policymaking during the Biafran War, the paper illuminates the interaction between domestic politics and international humanitarian crises, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of the intricate interplay between public advocacy, government policy, and the moral economy of aid.