War crimes probes in Ukraine, Myanmar among two dozen programmes at risk of US funding cuts
US President Donald Trump wants to ensure that American-taxpayer money funds programmes that are aligned with his 'America First' policies. PHOTO: REUTERS
War crimes probes in Ukraine, Myanmar among two dozen programmes at risk of US funding cuts
WASHINGTON/THE HAGUE - The White House on June 25 recommended terminating US funding for nearly two dozen programmes that conduct war crimes and accountability work globally, including in Myanmar, Syria and on alleged Russian atrocities in Ukraine, according to two US sources familiar with the matter and internal government documents reviewed by Reuters.
The recommendation from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has not been previously reported, is not the final decision to end the programmes since it gives the State Department the option to appeal.
But it sets up a potential back-and-forth between the OMB and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his aides, who will reply to OMB with their suggestions on which programmes deserve to continue.
The programmes also include work in Iraq, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Gambia.
The State Department and OMB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The expectation that Mr Rubio would argue for many of the programmes to be continued is slim, according to two US officials. However, the top US diplomat could make a case to keep crucial programmes, such as aiding potential war crimes prosecutions in Ukraine, according to one source familiar with the matter.
Several of the programmes earmarked for termination operate war crimes accountability projects in Ukraine, three sources familiar with the matter said, including Global Rights Compliance, which is helping to collect evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity across Ukraine, such as sexual violence and torture.
Another is the Legal Action Network, a legal aid group which supports local efforts to bring cases against Russian suspects of war crimes in Ukraine, the sources said.
Requests seeking comment from the groups were not immediately answered.
State Department bureaus that would like to preserve any war crimes and accountability programmes should send their justifications by close of business day on July 11, said an internal State Department email seen by Reuters.
Changing priorities
The administration of President Donald Trump has frozen and then cut back billions of dollars of foreign aid since taking office on Jan 20 to ensure American-taxpayer money funds programmes that are aligned with his 'America First' policies.
The unprecedented cutbacks have effectively shut down its premier aid arm US Agency for International Development, or USAid, jeopardised the delivery of life-saving food and medical aid, and thrown global humanitarian relief operations into chaos.
The OMB recommendation is yet another sign that the administration is increasingly de-prioritising advocacy for human rights and rule of law globally, an objective that previous US administrations have pursued.
While US foreign aid freezes had already started hampering an international effort to hold Russia responsible for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, the June 25 recommendations raise the risk of US completely abandoning those efforts.
Among the programmes that are recommended for termination is an US$18 million (S$23 billion) State Department grant for Ukraine's Prosecutor-General's Office that is implemented by Georgetown University's International Criminal Justice Initiative, two sources said.
While the programmes do not directly impact Ukraine's front-line efforts to fend off Russia's invasion, supporters say they represent the best chance of extensively documenting reported battlefield atrocities in Europe's biggest conflict since World War II, now grinding towards a fourth year.
Ukraine has opened more than 140,000 war crime cases since Moscow's February 2022 invasion, which has killed tens of thousands, ravaged vast swathes of the country and left behind mental and physical scars from occupation. Russia consistently denies war crimes have been committed by its forces in the conflict.
Path to appeal
Other programmes include one that does accountability work on the Myanmar army's atrocities against Rohingya minorities as well as on the persecution of Christians and other minorities by Syria's ousted former president Bashar al-Assad, two sources said.
While the OMB recommendations could face State Department push-back, the criteria to appeal are set very strictly.
In an internal State Department email, the administration cautioned that any effort to preserve programmes that were recommended to be terminated should be thoroughly argued and directly aligned with Washington's priorities.
'Bureaus must clearly and succinctly identify direct alignment to administration priorities,' the email, reviewed by Reuters said. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
19 minutes ago
- Business Times
The high cost of Trump's brain drain
[WASHINGTON, DC] – US President Donald Trump's attacks on Harvard University and its international students have shocked the world, not just because of their crudeness but also because of their blatant short-sightedness. For decades, leading universities like Harvard have been a cornerstone of American 'soft power'. Many of the world's brightest students have aspired to attend US institutions, and top researchers have sought to join their faculties. Harvard itself represents the pinnacle of American – and global – higher education. Even Chinese President Xi Jinping chose to send his daughter there. Now, the tide is turning. Prominent scholars are leaving the US to escape the paranoid atmosphere fostered by Trump's policies, and top-tier international students who once aimed to attend universities like Harvard, Columbia, or Northwestern – all recently targeted by Trump – are choosing other countries, fearing their education might be disrupted. Severe consequences The consequences could be severe. Since 2000, US-based researchers have won around two-thirds of the Nobel Prizes in chemistry, physics, and medicine – and 40 per cent of those laureates were immigrants. Notably, nearly half of immigrant US-based Nobel Prize winners completed their graduate studies at US universities. These scholars not only advanced groundbreaking research and enhanced their institutions' prestige but also served as teachers and mentors to both American and international students, attracting a new generation of academic talent. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Moreover, these cross-cultural interactions help American students gain a deeper understanding of other societies while giving their international counterparts firsthand experience of life in the US. Many of those who study in America later return to their home countries and rise to prominent positions in government, academia, and the private sector. As at 2024, 70 heads of state or government had completed part or all of their higher education in the US. Until recently, these benefits were widely acknowledged across the US political spectrum. A well-functioning system – the Student and Exchange Visitor Programme (SEVP) – allowed certified institutions to admit foreign students. SEVP enabled graduates on student visas to remain in the country for up to three years to gain work experience. But in a stunning display of ignorance and malice, the Trump administration tried to strip Harvard of its ability to enrol international students and even instructed US consulates not to process visa applications for those planning to attend the university – a move that was recently blocked by a federal court. This uncertainty is deeply unsettling for current and prospective students. Those who had planned to begin their studies in September may now find it is too late to enrol elsewhere for the upcoming academic year. A decline in international-student enrolment will not only hinder research at US institutions by shrinking the pool of talented assistants; it will also weaken the global pipeline of future scientists, diminishing the depth and quality of research worldwide. Strong link What Trump and his acolytes fail to grasp is the strong link between the excellence of American universities and the country's record of innovation. An analysis from 2022 found that more than half of US startups valued at over US$1 billion had at least one foreign-born founder, and in half of those cases the founder first came to the country as a student. Some Trump supporters have argued that barring foreign students from enrolling at Harvard and other private universities would create more opportunities for American students. But while a few additional spots might open up, the impact will likely be minimal. In fact, since a significant share of international students pay full tuition, their absence would reduce the resources available for financial aid. Foreign students have been effectively subsidising American students receiving assistance – a vital source of financial support that would now be lost. Those lost revenues pale in comparison to the broader contributions of Harvard and the higher-education system. University education has long been a major US export, with far more international students coming to the country than Americans going abroad. In the 2023-24 academic year alone, foreign students contributed an estimated US$44 billion to the US economy. To be sure, Harvard and other universities are not immune from criticism. But discouraging or restricting foreign enrolment would be a profound loss for American and international students and faculty alike. By attacking leading universities, the Trump administration is undermining one of America's crown jewels and dealing an unprecedented blow to the engine of US competitiveness. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer, a former World Bank chief economist and former first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, is senior research professor of international economics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and senior fellow at the Centre for International Development at Stanford University.
Straits Times
31 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Germany's Merz urges 'quick and simple' EU-US trade deal
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz speaks during a press conference, on the day of the European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium June 26, 2025. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann BRUSSELS - German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Thursday the EU should do a "quick and simple" trade deal with the United States rather than a "slow and complicated" one. Merz spoke at the end of a summit of EU leaders in Brussels, where European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the EU had received a new proposal from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in their transatlantic trade dispute. With the clock ticking before a tariff respite expires on July 9, Merz said time was of the essence. "We have less than two weeks until July 9 and you can't agree a sophisticated trade agreement in that time," he told reporters. Merz said German industries such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals, mechanical engineering, steel, aluminum and cars were already being burdened with high tariffs that businesses were in danger. Merz also said von der Leyen had suggested that Europeans build a new trade organisation that could gradually replace the World Trade Organization (WTO), which has struggled to function effectively in recent years. He said the idea was in its early stages but could include mechanisms to resolve disputes, as the WTO was meant to do. "You all know that the WTO doesn't work any more," he said. Also on trade, Merz said EU leaders were "basically united" in wanting to finalise a trade deal with Latin America's Mercosur bloc as soon as possible. He said there were only "small differences" between EU members on the pact. Asked about objections from France to the current proposal, Merz said he had spoken twice to French President Emmanuel Macron about the topic twice during the summit and felt there was "great readiness" to conclude the deal. Macron, however, struck a different note, telling reporters France could not accept the deal as it stands. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Business Times
36 minutes ago
- Business Times
Iran says no plan for new US nuclear talks, plays down impact of strikes
[TEHRAN] Iran on Thursday denied it is set to resume nuclear talks with the United States after the end of a 12-day war with Israel, and accused Washington of exaggerating the impact of US strikes. The most serious conflict yet between Israel and Iran derailed nuclear talks between Iran and the United States, yet President Donald Trump said Washington would hold discussions with Tehran next week, with his special envoy Steve Witkoff expressing hope 'for a comprehensive peace agreement'. But Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi shut down what he said was 'speculation' that Tehran would come to the table and said it 'should not be taken seriously'. 'I would like to state clearly that no agreement, arrangement or conversation has been made to start new negotiations,' he said on state television. 'No plan has been set yet to start negotiations.' Araghchi's denial came as Iranian lawmakers passed a 'binding' bill suspending cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog and after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused Trump of exaggerating the impact of US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. In a televised speech - his first appearance since a ceasefire in the war with Israel - Khamenei hailed what he described as Iran's 'victory' over Israel, vowed never to yield to US pressure and insisted Washington had been dealt a humiliating 'slap'. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 'The American president exaggerated events in unusual ways, and it turned out that he needed this exaggeration,' Khamenei said, rejecting US claims Iran's nuclear programme had been set back by decades. The strikes, he insisted, had done 'nothing significant' to Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Araghchi, for his part, called the damage 'serious' and said a detailed assessment was under way. Trump said key facilities, including the underground Fordo uranium enrichment site, had been 'obliterated' by American B-2 bombers. Posting on his Truth Social platform, he dismissed speculation Iran might have removed enriched uranium prior to the raid, saying: 'Nothing was taken out... too dangerous, and very heavy and hard to move!' He added that satellite images showed trucks at the site only because Iranian crews were attempting to shield the facility with concrete. Khamenei dismissed such claims, saying 'the Islamic republic won, and in retaliation dealt a severe slap to the face of America'. Both sides have claimed victory: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a 'historic win', while Khamenei said Iran's missile retaliation had brought Israel to the brink of collapse. US defence In Washington, the true impact of the strikes has sparked sharp political and intelligence debates. A leaked classified assessment suggested the damage to Iran's nuclear programme may be less severe than initially claimed - possibly delaying progress by only a few months. That contrasts with statements from senior US officials. CIA Director John Ratcliffe said several facilities would need to be 'rebuilt over the course of years'. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth accused the media of misrepresenting the operation. He said the United States used massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs on Fordo and another underground site, while submarine-launched Tomahawk missiles targeted a third facility. 'President Trump created the conditions to end the war, decimating - choose your word - obliterating, destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities,' Hegseth said. Doubts remain about whether Iran quietly removed some 400 kg of enriched uranium from its most sensitive sites before the strikes - potentially hiding nuclear material elsewhere in the country. Netanyahu says Iran 'thwarted' Following waves of Israeli attacks on nuclear and military sites and retaliatory missile fire from Iran since mid-June - the deadliest between the two countries to date - the US bombed three key Iranian atomic facilities. Initial intelligence reports, first revealed by CNN, suggested the strikes did not destroy critical components and delayed Iran's nuclear programme only by months. Experts questioned if Iran had pre-emptively moved enriched uranium to protect it. The US administration has forcefully rejected such suggestions. The Israeli military said Iran's nuclear sites had taken a 'significant' blow, but cautioned it was 'still early' to fully assess the damage. Netanyahu said Israel had 'thwarted Iran's nuclear project', warning any attempt by Iran to rebuild it would be met with the same determination and intensity. Iran has consistently denied seeking a nuclear weapon while defending its 'legitimate rights' to the peaceful use of atomic energy. It has also said it is willing to return to nuclear negotiations with Washington. The Israeli strikes on Iran killed at least 627 civilians, Tehran's health ministry said. Iran's attacks on Israel killed 28 people, according to Israeli figures. AFP
