
Emergency Food for 3 Million Children Is Stuck in DOGE Limbo
After Elon Musk made a public show of remedying an apparent error in DOGE's massive cuts to foreign aid, the Trump administration has quietly doubled down on its decision to stop sending emergency food to millions of children who are starving in Bangladesh, Somalia, and other countries. Without urgent intervention, many of these children are likely to die within months, experts told me.
As DOGE was gutting USAID in February, it alarmed the global-health community by issuing stop-work orders to the two American companies that make a lifesaving peanut paste widely recognized as the best treatment for malnutrition. The companies—Edesia and Mana Nutrition—subsequently received USAID's go-ahead to continue their work. But soon after that, their contracts were officially canceled. When news of the cancellation was made public, Elon Musk vowed to investigate the issue and 'fix it.' Hours later, Musk announced that one contract had been restored days earlier; that night, the second company received notice that its contract had been reinstated.
According to Mana and Edesia, however, that was only the start of the story. The contracts reinstated in February applied to old orders for emergency therapeutic food that Mana and Edesia were already in the middle of fulfilling. But two weeks ago, without any fanfare, the Trump administration then canceled all of its upcoming orders—that is, everything beyond those old orders that were previously reinstated—according to emails obtained by The Atlantic. The move reneged on an agreement to provide about 3 million children with emergency paste over approximately the next year. What's more, according to the two companies, the administration has also not awarded separate contracts to shipping companies, leaving much of the food assured by the original reinstated contracts stuck in the United States.
Globally, nearly half of all deaths among children under 5 are attributed to malnutrition. When children reach the most severe stage, those old enough to have teeth lose can them. Black hair turns orange as cells stop synthesizing pigment. Their bodies shrivel, and some lose the capacity to feel hunger at all. Before the 21st century, starving children could only be treated in a hospital, and among the sliver of them who were admitted, a third would die, Mark Manary, a pediatrics professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told me. The invention of a new type of emergency food allowed parents to treat their own kids at home; more than 90 percent recover within weeks of treatment, according to the International Rescue Committee.
The original brand-name version, Plumpy'Nut, was first used to treat children in the early 2000s, and the U.S. started supplying it to foreign countries in 2011, Manary told me. It's a pouch—basically an oversize ketchup packet—of peanut butter fortified with powdered milk, sugar, vitamins, minerals, and oil, a mixture that's easier for shrunken stomachs to digest than a full meal. The packets keep without a refrigerator, making them useful in hunger-prone settings like refugee camps and war zones. They come ready to eat, so parents don't need to worry about dissolving the contents in clean water. A six-week supply costs $40, and three packets a day fulfills all the basic nutritional needs of children ages six months to 5 years. This regimen regularly saves the lives of even those who are mere days from death. Lawrence Gostin, the director of Georgetown's Institute for National and Global Health Law, told me that ready-to-use therapeutic foods like Plumpy'Nut are 'the singular public-health achievement of the last several decades'—more consequential, experts reiterated to me, than even antibiotics or vaccines.
Typically, the U.S. supplies starving children with emergency therapeutic food through a multistep process. UNICEF and the World Food Programme forecast months in advance how much paste they'll need to send to various countries, and ask USAID to buy some of it. Previously, USAID hired Edesia (which is based in Rhode Island) and Mana (based in Georgia) to make the paste, then paid to ship the boxes overseas. The United Nations handles delivery once the food reaches port, and organizations such as Save the Children and Doctors Without Borders typically carry shipments to the children who ultimately consume them.
The Trump administration has broken every step of that system. According to Mana CEO Mark Moore and Edesia CEO Navyn Salem, USAID agreed back in October to buy more than 1 million boxes of therapeutic food. The World Food Programme and UNICEF planned to distribute the contents of this order as early as March, according to an email obtained by The Atlantic. But on April 4, both Edesia and Mana received an email from a staffer at the State Department that said the plans for 10 countries to receive the emergency paste would not move forward. (Those countries: Bangladesh, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen, to which the U.S. has separately canceled all humanitarian aid.)
When I spoke with Moore, he panned his phone across the production floor to show me boxes upon boxes of peanut paste piled against the walls. Moore told me he is terrified for the children who will die without the paste. Without it, he said, 'they're trapped. Just trapped.' He is also worried for the Americans who rely on his business for their own livelihoods. 'All we're doing is cutting farmers and hurting kids. That just seems like a terrible plan to me,' he said. Meanwhile, Edesia, which had stopped its production for the first time in more than a decade after the first cancellation notice, is now making just 2,000 Plumpy'Nut packets a day instead of the usual 10,000, Salem said.
Moore and Salem both told me that even if USAID had not canceled the order itself, they have no idea how they would have shipped it. As far as they know, the U.S. government has failed to award many expected contracts to the shipping companies that Moore and Salem have long used to send their emergency food products overseas. This month, Salem said, Edesia was able to ship 42,000 boxes of emergency food for moderately malnourished kids to Somalia, but was unable to secure transport for another approved shipment of 123,888 boxes for acutely malnourished children to Sudan. Salem says she has no clue why. Hundreds of thousands of boxes of food from both companies' old, reinstated orders still have not left the U.S. 'We need product to leave the factories at no later than four months' after it is manufactured, Salem told me, to ensure at least a year of shelf life when it arrives in Africa or Asia. She does not know who to call, at USAID or the State Department, to make that happen, she told me.
On April 10, Moore received an email from a State Department staffer who said that her team is seeking approval to ship the paste that has already been manufactured—if not to the original intended recipients, then somewhere. 'We are not sure of the timeline for this approval,' the staffer wrote. 'But please know that we are trying to ensure that no commodities go to waste.'
Even if the paste makes it overseas before it expires, it might not make it into children's hands. Save the Children, one of UNICEF's major last-mile distributors, typically gives out emergency therapeutic food at clinics where mothers can also give birth and take their infants for health screenings. But the organization has been forced to stop its work in nearly 1,000 clinics since Trump's inauguration in January because of U.S. funding that his administration eliminated or failed to renew, Emily Byers, a managing director at the organization, told me.
In a statement, UNICEF told me that the Trump administration still has not informed the organization of the canceled orders. UNICEF projects that 7 million children will require treatment for extreme malnutrition in 2025. Even before the USAID cuts, it had the budget to treat only 4.2 million of them. Mana and Edesia typically provide 10 to 20 percent of UNICEF's annual emergency therapeutic food, and USAID supplies half of its overall funding for nutrition treatment and hunger-prevention services. 'Today, we have no visibility on future funding from the US Government,' the statement read. Typically, producers have half a year to fill an order as big as the one the U.S. canceled, according to Odile Caron, a food-procurement specialist at Doctors Without Borders. UNICEF needs that food in much less time. If malnourished kids don't get access to emergency therapeutic food because of the U.S. government's decisions, 'in three months, half of them will be dead, and the rest will have terrible disabilities, mostly neurocognitive,' Manary, who also ran the first clinical trials on Plumpy'Nut, told me.
Since the dissolution of USAID began in January—most of the agency has been gutted, the rest absorbed by the State Department—the Trump administration has insisted that lifesaving foreign aid will be allowed to continue. Just yesterday, a State Department spokesperson told reporters, 'We know that we are a country with incredible resources. We know that. And we have incredible responsibilities, and we do not shy away from them.' The White House did not answer my questions about the discrepancy between that sentiment and the orders that the administration cancelled. USAID, the State Department, DOGE, and Musk did not respond to requests for comment. According to NPR, a program in Syria that feeds expecting mothers and young children was told that its contract was spared from the government's ongoing cuts. But a separate contract funding the program's staff was terminated, leaving no one to do the work. Meanwhile, all that paste is still piled up in Moore's warehouse.
During Trump's first Cabinet meeting, in February, Musk acknowledged that DOGE's teardown of foreign assistance had been hasty, then pledged that 'when we make mistakes, we will fix it very quickly.' But the White House seems to have done nothing yet to fix this problem. Instead, it is keeping in purgatory two American companies that make a product that dying children need to survive. As Moore reminded me throughout our conversation, he has hundreds of thousands of boxes of paste packed and ready for distribution. That means one of two things happens next: 'It will get shipped or it will get destroyed.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

10 minutes ago
Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds
NEW YORK -- The world's richest man could lose billions in his fight with world's most powerful politician. The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla's plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers. Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump's appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds. Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, 'Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he'll probably just let this pass.' Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk. 'For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon's businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.' Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk. The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla's driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win. Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis. Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk's driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian. A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency "will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.' The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment. The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50% in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14% amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4%. 'Tesla's recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm," said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. 'Elon's feud with Trump could be a negative.' One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla's business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits. As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump's budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling 'regulatory credits' to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls. Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk's time working for Trump. Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped. Musk's foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms. If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that's far from certain. Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas 'in a meaningful way.' But he's now less hopeful. 'There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,' TD Cowen's Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, 'and it's still too early to determine any lasting impacts.' Michaeli's stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300. Tesla did not respond to requests for comment. Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk's rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars. The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year. But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the U.S. SpaceX is the only U.S. company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia's Soyuz capsules. Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn't do it. A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk's once-close relationship with the president. Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs. It's not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business. On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40% of India's more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the internet. Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash. Musk has called their decision to leave an 'illegal boycott' and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them. Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger. If Trump sours on X, "there's a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,' said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an 'exodus isn't obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.'

Wall Street Journal
14 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Supreme Court Allows DOGE Access to Social Security Data
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for members of the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting group once led by Elon Musk, to access sensitive Social Security Administration records. Granting an emergency request by the Trump administration, the justices lifted a lower court order that for now had barred DOGE employees or affiliates from accessing the agency's systems and directed them to delete personal information they already had gathered.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court largely reinstates Trump's ban on AP's access to White House
A federal appeals court panel on Friday reinstated parts of President Donald Trump's ban of the Associated Press from several key areas where presidential press events are typically held, including the Oval Office, Air Force One and the president's home in Mar-A-Lago. The court left in place part of a lower-court order that required Trump to give AP access to events held in larger spaces, like the East Room. The ruling is a setback to the news organization's efforts to restore its access to the White House press pool, the small group of reporters and photographers who get access to a variety of White House spaces and other areas frequented by the president. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both Trump appointees, largely granted the government's request to lift an April ruling from a district judge who blocked the ban. The decision from Rao and Katsas allows most of the ban to go back into effect while litigation over its constitutionality continues. The AP sued after Trump banned the news organization for refusing to adopt his renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as the 'Gulf of America.' In a 27-page opinion, Rao wrote that 'these restricted presidential spaces are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion. The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Katsas signed onto Rao's opinion. The April injunction from district judge Trevor McFadden, another Trump appointee, 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces,' Rao added. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, saying that the Supreme Court has never held that journalists or news organizations can be excluded from a forum based on their viewpoint. 'The panel's stay of the preliminary injunction cannot be squared with longstanding First Amendment precedent, multiple generations of White House practice and tradition, or any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy,' Pillard wrote. 'Looking further ahead, if any merits panel were to accept those theories, the result would be a Press Pool — and perhaps an entire press corps — limited during Republican administrations to the likes of Fox News and limited to outlets such as MSNBC when a Democrat is elected.' The Trump administration has argued that Air Force One, the Oval Office and other spaces in the White House are akin to personal and private spaces where public access can be restricted.