US aid kept many hungry Somali children alive. Now that money is disappearing
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — The cries of distressed children filled the ward for the severely malnourished. Among the patients was 1-year-old Maka'il Mohamed. Doctors pressed his chest in a desperate attempt to support his breathing.
His father brought him too late to a hospital in Somalia 's capital, Mogadishu. The victim of complications related to malnutrition, the boy did not survive.
'Are you certain? Did he really die?' the father, Mohamed Ma'ow, asked a doctor, shocked.
The death earlier this month at Banadir Hospital captured the agony of a growing number of Somalis who are unable to feed their children — and that of health workers who are seeing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. support disappear under the Trump administration.
The U.S. Agency for International Development once provided 65% of Somalia's foreign aid, according to Dr. Abdiqani Sheikh Omar, the former director general of the Ministry of Health and now a government advisor.
Now USAID is being dismantled. And in Somalia, dozens of centers treating the hungry are closing. They have been crucial in a country described as having one of the world's most fragile health systems as it wrestles with decades of insecurity.
Save the Children, the largest non-governmental provider of health and nutrition services to children in Somalia, said the lives of 55,000 children will be at risk by June as it closes 121 nutrition centers it can no longer fund.
Aid cuts mean that 11% more children are expected to be severely malnourished than in the previous year, Save the Children said.
Somalia has long faced food insecurity because of climate shocks like drought. But aid groups and Somalis alike now fear a catastrophe.
Former Somali Foreign Minister Ahmed Moalin told state-run TV last month that USAID had provided $1 billion in funding for Somalia in fiscal year 2023, with a similar amount expected for 2024.
Much of that funding is now gone.
A U.S. State Department spokesperson in a statement to the AP said 'several lifesaving USAID humanitarian assistance programs are active in Somalia, including programs that provide food and nutrition assistance to children," and they were working to make sure the programs continue when such aid transitions to the State Department on July 1.
The problem, aid workers say, is the U.S. hasn't made clear what programs are lifesaving, or whether whatever funding is left will continue after July 1.
The aid group CARE has warned that 4.6 million people in Somalia are projected to face severe hunger by June, an uptick of hundreds of thousands of people from forecasts before the aid cuts.
The effects are felt in rural areas and in Mogadishu, where over 800,000 displaced people shelter. Camps for them are ubiquitous in the city's suburbs, but many of their centers for feeding the hungry are now closing.
Some people still go to the closed centers and hope that help will come.
Mogadishu residents said they suffer, too.
Ma'ow, the bereaved father, is a tailor. He said he had been unable recently to provide three meals a day for his family of six. His wife had no breast milk for Maka'il, whose malnutrition deteriorated between multiple trips to the hospital.
Doctors confirmed that malnutrition was the primary factor in Maka'il's decline.
The nutrition center at Banadir Hospital where Ma'ow family had been receiving food assistance is run by Alight Africa, a local partner for the U.N. children's agency, UNICEF, and one that has lost funding.
The funding cuts have left UNICEF's partners unable to provide lifesaving support, including therapeutic supplies and supplemental nutrition at a time when 15% of Somali children are acutely malnourished, said Simon Karanja, a regional UNICEF official.
One Alight Africa worker, Abdullahi Hassan, confirmed that the group had to close all their nutrition centers in several districts of Mogadishu. One nutrition project supervisor for the group, Said Abdullahi Hassan, said closures have caused, 'tragically, the deaths of some children.'
Without the food assistance they had taken for granted, many Somalis are seeing their children waste away.
More than 500 malnourished children were admitted to the center for malnourished children at Banadir Hospital between April and May, according to Dr. Mohamed Jama, head of the nutrition center.
He said such increases in patients usually occur during major crises like drought or famine but called the current situation unprecedented.
"The funding gap has impacted not only the malnourished but also health staff, whose salaries have been cut,' he said.
Fadumo Ali Adawe, a mother of five who lives in one of the camps, said she urgently needed help for her 3-year-old daughter, malnourished now for nine months. The nearby nutrition center she frequented is now closed.
'We are unsure of what to do next," she said.
Inside that center, empty food packages were strewn about — and USAID posters still hung on the walls.
___
For more on Africa and development: https://apnews.com/hub/africa-pulse
The Associated Press receives financial support for global health and development coverage in Africa from the Gates Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
21 minutes ago
- Washington Post
RFK Jr. picks new members of influential vaccine committee after purge
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. named eight people to the influential federal panel that recommends vaccines to Americans days after he purged the entire membership of the group. His picks for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices include a well-known pediatric infectious diseases expert and at least two people who have criticized the use of mRNA coronavirus vaccines. Some of the more notable selections include Martin Kulldorff, the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for herd immunity through mass covid infection in 2020, and Vicky Pebsworth, who has been listed on the board of the nation's oldest anti-vaccine group.
WebMD
an hour ago
- WebMD
Dense Breast Tissue Can Hide Cancer. Now What?
June 11, 2025 — Have you checked your annual mammogram off your health to-do list? That's a relief, for sure — but there's one more critical step to take after you get your results. Go over your report to see if you have dense breast tissue. For more than 40% of women, the answer is yes. And that means you may want to consider supplemental testing. The next step isn't always clear. But two new studies compared your options. Here's what to know. 1. Having dense breasts increases your risk of breast cancer. Why it matters: Not only is the risk higher, but it's also harder to detect cancer in dense breasts. What to know: Dense breasts have more fibrous tissue and milk glands than fat tissue. On a mammogram, the dense areas show up as white — the same color as cancer. That can make cancer harder to see, particularly when it's small. Federal law (since last fall) requires that you be notified whether your mammogram shows you have dense breasts. To be certain, check your patient portal report or call your doctor's office. You'll also want to find out if you have 'heterogeneously dense' or 'extremely dense' breasts. What's the difference? "Heterogeneously dense" means most of the breast is dense with some areas of fat, and "extremely dense" means the breast has almost no fatty tissue. Even if you don't have dense breasts now, they could become more dense as you age, so you need to recheck your report every year. Dense breasts can only be diagnosed with imaging — a physical exam can't tell. Bottom line: 'Women should know that if they have dense breasts, the mammogram might not see their cancer,' said Ruth Etzioni, PhD, a biostatistician at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle who specializes in analyzing benefit-harm tradeoffs in cancer screening tests. 2. If you have dense breasts, consider supplemental screening. Why it matters: Between 25% and 30% of cancers in heterogeneously dense breasts are missed on a standard mammogram. That number for extremely dense breasts is even higher, potentially topping 40%. What to know: Knowing your breast density type can help you understand how likely a mammogram would be to miss cancer in your breast. But that's only one part of the decision-making equation. For those with heterogeneously dense breasts, 'we typically will consider other risk factors in addition to breast density in order to decide whether to recommend supplemental screening,' said Pittsburgh-based radiologist and dense-breast expert Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD. A list of risk factors, including family history and high BMI after menopause, is available at Bottom line: If you have extremely dense breasts, you should get supplemental screening, Berg said. If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, you should know your risk factors and talk to your doctor about what makes sense for you. 3. There are three types of supplemental screenings. Why it matters: Researchers compared these techniques — ultrasound, MRI, and contrast-enhanced mammogram — by randomly assigning them to women ages 50 to 70 with dense breasts whose mammograms didn't detect cancer. Results showed that MRI and the contrast-enhanced mammogram (using an iodine -based dye that helps reveal cancers) each found nearly five times as many cancers as ultrasound. What to know: Contrast-enhanced mammogram detected 19.2 cancers per 1,000 people scanned; MRI detected 17.4 per 1,000 scans; ultrasound detected 4.2 per 1,000. These detection rates were somewhat higher than in past studies, Berg and Etzioni said. They noted that women who get the scans repeated annually often see those detection rates drop over time. (That's because you're more likely to have an undetected past cancer than to develop a new one in the next year.) A separate study in JAMA Oncology recently showed that among women with a family history of breast cancer, just getting a slightly better scan than a standard mammogram — called a 3D mammogram — offered improved detection of advanced cancer in women with extremely dense breasts. 'That was compelling that we should really be doing [3D mammogram] as the routine screening, at least for the basic screening,' Berg said. Bottom line: If you have a family history of breast cancer, request a 3D mammogram for your initial annual screen, and when considering supplemental scans, know that some are better than others. 4. Your doctor may not automatically suggest supplemental screening. Why it matters: Berg's own doctor questioned her request to get an MRI after Berg learned that she has dense breasts. Ultimately, she got the MRI, which showed a small cancer that she said was easily treated and she has recovered. What to know: An advisory group called the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that typically influences what insurance will cover doesn't recommend supplemental screening for people with dense breasts. Their reason: There is no multi-year clinical trial data examining whether extra screenings have drawbacks. Bottom line: It's OK to request supplemental screening, and knowing your risk factors will help during that conversation with your doctor. 'You still can't count on your doctor to provide all the information that you might need to make a decision for yourself about supplemental screening,' Berg said. 5. Not all supplemental screenings are covered by insurance. Why it matters: Not every state requires insurance to cover supplemental screenings — and in those that do, the law may not apply to every type of insurance. maintains a list of which states and plan types are required to cover it. What to know: Without coverage, out-of-pocket costs for an MRI can reach thousands of dollars, but a type called 'abbreviated' or 'quick' MRI can be lower — between $300 and $600 total. Contrast mammography and ultrasound are usually even less, and a 3D mammogram can sometimes cost an extra $40 or $50. MRIs where Berg works in Pittsburgh are booking six months out. A contrast-enhanced mammogram isn't a usual method used in the U.S., but Berg said some places are starting to offer it and testing the waters to see if insurance will cover it. The procedure only takes about 15 minutes, including the contrast dye injection, and uses a standard mammogram machine. Bottom line: 'If you have heterogeneously dense breasts, I think it really does come down to your own tolerance of other risk factors and whether your insurance will cover it, so it is more of a personal choice,' Berg said. 6. Think through your benefit/harm tradeoffs. Why it matters: Getting extra scans can be stressful, potentially expensive, and require a lot of time researching and communicating with your provider — not to mention taking time off work for appointments. What to know: Your risk calculation is complex, including the risk of missing a cancer detection. For example, ultrasound does have advantages (it's quick, noninvasive, and inexpensive), but tends not to spot cancer until the tumor is larger. There's also about a 10% risk of a false positive with most screening types. 'You have to poke a lot of people to find the people that you can help,' said Etzioni, who is an expert in data-driven medical decision-making, particularly when it comes to diagnostic testing and early cancer diagnosis. Bottom line: Deciding whether to get additional screening is personal and involves weighing your comfort with risk and the potential stress and cost of a false positive, Berg said. 'I think it's hard — you don't want to have any regrets either way. I don't know anybody who has regrets that their cancer was found too small. It's always better — if it's going to be there — to find it as early as possible.'
Time Magazine
3 hours ago
- Time Magazine
History Shows the Danger of Trump and RFK Jr.'s Health Policies
On May 11, 2023, President Joseph Biden ended the COVID-19 public health emergency, calling an finish to the pandemic. By the end of 2023, COVID-19 claimed the lives of over 20 million people around the world. But through international cooperation and evidence-based science, vaccines were developed and the world moved on. Indeed, perhaps the biggest success of the period was the quick production of a COVID-19 vaccine. The research behind the mRNA vaccine had been ongoing since the 1970s, but the emergency of the pandemic and international sharing of knowledge helped bring the vaccine to fruition. Today, the COVID-19 vaccine has been credited with saving 2.4 million lives around the world. But now, the U.S. is choosing competition over cooperation. With President Donald Trump's day one executive order to leave the World Health Organization (WHO)—blaming their COVID-19 response—and the shuttering of USAID, the country is taking steps towards further dividing health efforts across the globe. Here in the U.S., a sudden end to $11.4 billion of covid-related grants is stifling national pandemic preparedness efforts on the local and state levels. And most recently, Health and Human Services Secretary RFK Jr. purged experts from the CDC Advisory Committee, putting lives at risk. Historical lessons demonstrate the need for global health infrastructure that works together, shares knowledge, and remembers that pathogens do not stop at borders. One of the greatest global health achievements of all time— smallpox eradication —provides a perfect example of what can be done with independent scientific research and international cooperation. During the Cold War between the U.S. and USSR, decades of tension brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Yet, incredibly, the nations managed to find common ground to support the efforts of smallpox eradication. Indeed, they understood the strategic benefits that came from letting public health practitioners and scientists work outside of political divides. The WHO was founded after World War II in 1948. Its formation marked a move from international health, that focused on nations, to global health, that would serve humanity first. The WHO's first eradication effort was the failed, U.S.-backed, Malaria Eradication Program from 1955 to 1969. The Smallpox Eradication Program, with intensive efforts beginning in 1967, provided a chance for redemption for the U.S. and WHO. For the United States, investing in disease eradication and poverty helped to mitigate growing backlash against the Vietnam War. In June of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, 'I propose to dedicate this year to finding new techniques for making man's knowledge serve man's welfare.' He called for 1965—the same year he ordered ground troops to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism —to be a year of international cooperation that could bypass the politics of the Cold War. Previously, the USSR did not participate in the U.S. and WHO's first, failed global eradication plan for malaria. But upon rejoining the WHO in 1956, it was the Soviets who made the first call and investment into global eradication of smallpox in 1958. The WHO functioning as a mediator was crucial to allowing the USSR and the U.S. to work together. It allowed both nations to avoid giving credit to each other; rather success went to science itself. President Johnson called this 'a turning point' away from 'man against man' towards 'man against nature.' The limited role of politicians in the program proved to be key to its success. Scientists made decisions and worked together—no matter what country they came from—by focusing on disease and vaccination, not international tensions. The Soviet-initiated program was lead by Donald A. Henderson, a U.S. epidemiologist, who worked alongside the Russians until the last case of smallpox occurred in Somalia on October 26, 1977. During the 20th century, smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300 to 500 million deaths. Smallpox was officially declared eradicated by the WHO in October 1980, and is today still the only human disease to achieve this distinction. Less than a year after the declaration of smallpox eradication, the emergence of another pandemic, the HIV/AIDS crisis, reinforced the importance of science-first cooperation over politically-driven decision making. In June 1981, the first cases of a new unknown disease were reported in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. In short order, gay men were stigmatized and blamed in what would become one of the biggest public health disasters of all time. It took years of grassroots science-based activism to move beyond HIV/AIDS victim-blaming and find medical solutions. Too often, governments across the globe placed blame on the gay community for their 'sins' and did not provide needed support, leaving the sick to suffer and die. The pharmaceutical companies profited from the limited medications they had available and did not pursue sufficient development. The FDA process for new drugs was scheduled to take nine years, at a time when life expectancy after receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was one year. These issues sparked activism, spawning the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) in 1987. ACT UP organizers took science into their own hands and began educating themselves. Members began reading scientific journals religiously, learning the chemistry and epidemiology of drug manufacturing and clinical trials. Members learned how to translate these dense scientific messages to educate the community members on what was—and what was not—being done to help. Because of this work, the FDA changed policies to allow for new treatments to be tested at accelerated rates in times of emergency. ACT UP was able to shift the cultural blame showing that the issue was a result of politics getting in the way of scientific advancements. By 1990, ACT UP influenced the largest federal HIV program to pass Congress, the Ryan White CARE Act. This program was a vital precursor to the 2003 PEPFAR (The U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) global initiative. Both of these histories offer a powerful lesson: global health is national health, and national health is local health. With the recent funding cuts from the U.S. government, the future of global health is going in an unknown direction. And yet, the occurrence of pandemics is expected to increase in frequency due to climate change, mass migration, urbanization, and ecosystem destruction. It has been estimated that there is about a 25% chance we will have another COVID-sized pandemic within the next 10 years. No matter how secure the world makes borders, history shows that it can not protect us from disease if we do not have a strong, interconnected public health infrastructure. Luke Jorgensen is a Master of Public Health student at Purdue University where his epidemiology research examines human migration and infectious disease.
