America's global AIDS relief program is on the brink
America's most celebrated global health program is on life support, former U.S. government officials and global health advocates say.
President Donald Trump's decision to suddenly halt and then terminate most U.S. foreign aid, and GOP concerns that organizations receiving government grants to combat HIV and AIDS were performing abortions, have key congressional Republicans broaching what was once unthinkable: ending PEPFAR, the program President George W. Bush created to combat HIV and AIDS in the developing world. Bush has long championed it and the 25 million lives it's saved as the best example of his 'compassionate conservatism.'
But Trump has lumped the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in with other foreign aid programs he sees as indicative of the way Washington has put the needs of foreigners over Americans and the seismic shift in GOP attitudes since Trump took over the party.
The Bush Institute, an arm of the center that promotes Bush's legacy, is pleading with the administration and Republicans to keep the program alive, making the case that it's good for America.
'PEPFAR is a strategic investment in our own national security,' Hannah Johnson, a senior program manager for global policy at the institute, wrote earlier this month, arguing that 'it engenders goodwill toward the United States at a time when Russia and China are competing for greater influence, in ways that are not beneficial in the long-term for the African continent.'
She called on the administration to continue the program — 'whether through USAID, the CDC, the Pentagon, or the State Department. It is a matter of life and death.'
Since late February, the Trump administration has terminated hundreds of millions of dollars in PEPFAR grants and contracts amid its rapid effort to align foreign aid with its 'America First' policy, according to a list obtained by POLITICO. Next week, the 2003 law that established PEPFAR is set to expire with no indication it'll be renewed anytime soon.
Congress did appropriate funding to cover PEPFAR's expenses through September earlier this month. Its programs can continue even if the law authorizing it expires, but only if Trump wants to spend the money. PEPFAR's budget is between $6 and $7 billion per year.
Trump has halted most programs overseen by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which handled a majority of PEPFAR's projects, but so far hasn't touched the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's, which run nearly $2 billion a year.
The cuts the administration has made have alarmed public health advocates. A sudden end to PEPFAR could kill six million people in the next four years, reverse decades of progress and lead to growing HIV epidemics across the world, over 500 AIDS physicians and researchers warned in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
'Over time, these policy decisions may be proven illegal in U.S. courts but the human suffering and loss of lives happening now cannot be reversed by any court order,' they wrote, asking Rubio to restart all PEPFAR projects.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on the letter.
Abortion politics
PEPFAR enjoyed bipartisan support until two years ago, when congressional Republicans accused then-President Joe Biden of indirectly funding abortion abroad by providing PEPFAR funds to groups that support or provide abortions. After allowing the law that authorizes the program to expire in 2023, Congress ended up reupping it for one year last March. Every previous renewal was for five.
Then in January, the Biden administration acknowledged that a routine check on grant compliance in the southeast African country of Mozambique found that four nurses in a small province whose salaries were funded by PEPFAR provided abortions, which is legal in the country.
Mozambique refunded the money — $4,100 — but Senate Foreign Relations Chair Jim Risch (R-Idaho), whose panel oversees PEPFAR and would lead any effort to renew it, said it called into doubt his support for the program. 'This violation means that the future of the PEPFAR program is certainly in jeopardy,' he said in a statement at the time.
Advocates of PEPFAR have in the past turned to Rep. Michael McCaul, an 11-term Texan representing a swath of suburbia from Austin to Houston and friend of Bush's who'd helped convince fellow Republicans in 2024 to reup PEPFAR for a year despite their misgivings.
But in January, GOP term limits for committee chairs forced McCaul to give up his post atop the House Foreign Affairs Committee. McCaul's replacement, Florida Republican Brian Mast, told POLITICO earlier this year that he wants to rethink the U.S. investment in PEPFAR.
'If Americans are spending billions of dollars for multiple decades funding extremely expensive HIV medication for 20 million Africans, there should be a conversation about that,' he said. 'At what point do some or all countries start to handle that on their own?'
The bottom dropped out for PEPFAR shortly after Trump's inauguration in January when, as one of his first actions, he closed the agency that sponsors most foreign aid, USAID, and then terminated billions in State Department funding.
The cuts included grants and contracts supporting HIV prevention for teenage girls and gay men, who are at high risk of acquiring HIV in some countries in Africa; efforts to control the spread of HIV in Nepal, Uganda and Ukraine, and clinical trials researching a vaccine and other HIV prevention measures.
A State Department spokesperson said a list of the programs obtained by POLITICO 'is inaccurate and unverified' but didn't provide more details.
Payments for some of the PEPFAR projects still intact, such as a major contract to supply and deliver HIV drugs, aren't flowing to the organizations running them, keeping crucial lifelines effectively frozen, according to a person familiar with the USAID programs allowed to speak anonymously for fear of reprisal from the administration.
Eight countries already face significant disruptions to HIV drugs and are expected to run out in the coming months, the World Health Organization, an arm of the United Nations, said Monday, listing Kenya, Lesotho, and Ukraine among them.
The Trump administration has argued in court that it needed to verify most payments manually to ensure there's no fraud involved but a federal judge ordered it to pay a large batch of backlogged invoices for foreign aid programs. In many cases, those payments are still pending: There are about 10,000 payments that need to be processed, the State Department said in a court document on March 19.
The administration has kept a few hundred USAID employees out of more than 10,000. Trump is folding what's left of the agency into the State Department. Just over a dozen PEPFAR specialists from USAID's global health bureau will be hired at the State Department office managing the program, according to a State Department memo obtained by POLITICO.
Mast told POLITICO that he's considering reupping the law undergirding PEPFAR in September when the State Department will also come up for reauthorization.
Mast suggested he'll prioritize shifting responsibility for HIV and AIDS prevention and care to the countries that have relied on PEPFAR: 'There's countries — and their leaders — that have just taken it for granted that the United States is just going to pay for their HIV medication forever.' Some of those countries have worked with China on mineral extraction and other things, Mast said, suggesting America's PEPFAR investment didn't serve the U.S. as many tout it.
He said those countries could borrow money to provide HIV-prevention services that were funded by PEPFAR to their citizens.
The Trump administration's shock-and-awe approach in freezing and then cutting most of foreign aid, and, with it, many PEPFAR programs, has left global health advocates and some on Capitol Hill wondering what's left of the program that until recently was fiercely supported by most Republicans and Democrats.
'It's hard to understand how PEPFAR, as we know it, can continue at this moment,' said a House Democratic aide granted anonymity to speak candidly.
Trump's plans
PEPFAR is an ecosystem of services that goes beyond providing medication and includes testing and reaching out to vulnerable groups, such as teenage girls, the aide said. The program 'is not going to be as successful if we chip away at pieces along the way and strip it down to something that is just, perhaps a straight provision of medication,' the aide added.
Pete Marocco, the foreign assistance director at the State Department who has led the foreign aid cuts and USAID's dismantling, told lawmakers from the House and Senate foreign affairs committees in meetings earlier this month that around $4 billion from PEPFAR's annual funding wasn't spent on lifesaving treatment and went to advocacy instead, according to two people with knowledge of the conversation speaking anonymously because they aren't allowed to publicly comment on private meetings. Marrocco also said the program only needed about $2 billion to provide lifesaving treatment, according to the two people.
Marocco didn't provide a list of terminated or retained programs to lawmakers, Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said after meeting him.
The State Department said it doesn't comment on its officials' communications and briefings with Congress.
While uncertainty about what's been eliminated and what remains persists, the cuts will damage the foreign aid system, including the programs that the administration may want to keep, said Andrew Natsios, a Republican who ran USAID in the Bush administration.
Dr. Atul Gawande, who ran USAID's global health programs in the Biden administration, said the funding freeze and terminations are putting the whole program at risk.
'This is the end of PEPFAR as we know it, and if certain issues aren't addressed, it's just the plain end of PEPFAR,' he told reporters in a call in late February.
Some global health advocates and lawmakers are holding out hope Gawande is wrong.
'PEPFAR, unlike the health programs that are based at USAID, is based at the State Department; does still have a team there overseeing the program; was given, at least on paper, the ability to continue some care and treatment,' said Jen Kates, senior vice president and director of the Global Health & HIV Policy Program at KFF, a health policy think-tank.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, acknowledged that it will be difficult for the program to recover from the blows it has suffered over the past few weeks.
'But I'm determined that it's not the end for PEPFAR. It is too important, too valuable, too effective a program for us to give up on,' he said.

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


Boston Globe
3 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump invoked a section of the US code that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion, the law states. California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, has sharply criticized the move, saying state and local authorities have the situation under control and accusing Trump of attempting to create a 'spectacle.' Advertisement The directive, announced by the White House late Saturday, came after some protests against immigration raids turned violent, with protesters setting cars aflame and lighting fireworks, and law enforcement in tactical gear using tear gas and stun grenades. Trump claimed in his executive order that the unrest in Southern California was prohibiting the execution of immigration enforcement and therefore met the definition of a rebellion. Advertisement Legal experts said they expect Trump's executive order to draw legal challenges. On Sunday, Newsom asked the Trump administration to rescind his deployment of the National Guard, saying the administration had not followed proper legal procedure in sending them to the state. Trump said the National Guard troops would be used to 'temporarily' protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and 'other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.' Goitein called Trump's exercise of the statute an 'untested' departure from its use by previous presidents. She said presidents have in the past invoked this section of federal law in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, which Trump did not. The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy armed forces or the National Guard domestically to suppress armed rebellion, riots or other extreme circumstances. It allows US military personnel to perform law enforcement activities - such as making arrests and performing searches - generally prohibited by another law, the Posse Comitatus Act. The last time a president invoked this section of US code in tandem with the Insurrection Act was in 1992, during the riots that engulfed Los Angeles after the acquittal of police officers in the beating of Rodney King. The Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout US history to deal with riots and labor unrest, and to protect Black Americans from the Ku Klux Klan. Advertisement During his 2024 campaign, Trump and aides discussed invoking the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to quell anticipated protests, and he said at an Iowa rally that he would unilaterally send troops to Democratic-run cities to enforce order. 'You look at any Democrat-run state, and it's just not the same - it doesn't work,' Trump told the crowd, suggesting cities like New York and Los Angeles had severe crime problems. 'We cannot let it happen any longer. And one of the other things I'll do - because you're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in - the next time, I'm not waiting.' Trump's willingness to use the armed forces to put down protests has drawn fierce blowback from civil liberties groups and Democrats, who have said suppressing dissent with military force is a violation of the country's norms. 'President Trump's deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,' Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. 'By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.' Goitein said Trump's move to invoke only the federal service law might be calculated to try to avoid any political fallout from invoking the Insurrection Act, or it's merely a prelude to doing so. 'This is charting new ground here, to have a president try to uncouple these authorities,' Goitein said. 'There's a question here whether he is essentially trying to deploy the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it.' Advertisement Trump's move also was unusual in other ways, Goitein said. Domestic military deployments typically come at the request of a governor and in response to the collapse of law enforcement control or other serious threats. Local authorities in Los Angeles have not asked for such help. Goitein said the last time a president ordered the military to a state without a request was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck wrote on his website that invoking the Armed Services Act - and not the Insurrection Act - means the troops will be limited in what role they will be able to perform. 'Nothing that the President did Saturday night would, for instance, authorize these federalized National Guard troops to conduct their own immigration raids; make their own immigration arrests; or otherwise do anything other than, to quote the President's own memorandum, 'those military protective activities that the Secretary of Defense determines are reasonably necessary to ensure the protection and safety of Federal personnel and property,'' Vladeck wrote. Rachel E. VanLandingham, a former Air Force attorney and professor at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, echoed the point. Unless acting under federal orders from the president, National Guard units are state organizations overseen by governors. While under state control, Guard troops have broader law enforcement authorities, VanLandingham said. In this situation, the service members under federal control will have more restraints. 'But it can easily and quickly escalate to mortal and constitutional danger,' she said, if Trump decides to also invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give these Guard members and any active-duty troops who may be summoned to Los Angeles the authority to perform law enforcement duties. Advertisement During his first term as president, Trump suggested invoking the Insurrection Act to deal with protests over the 2020 police killing of George Floyd, but his defense secretary at the time, Mark T. Esper, objected and it never came to fruition. Trump asked the governors of a handful of states to send troops to D.C. in response to the Floyd protests there. Some governors agreed, but others turned aside the request. National Guard members were present outside the White House in June of that year during a violent crackdown on protesters demonstrating against police brutality. That same day, D.C. National Guard helicopters overseen by Trump's Army secretary then, Ryan McCarthy, roared over protesters in downtown Washington, flying as low as 55 feet. An Army review later determined it was a misuse of helicopters specifically designated for medical evacuations. Trump also generated controversy when he sent tactical teams of border officers to Portland, Oregon, and to Seattle to confront protesters there.


Fox News
3 minutes ago
- Fox News
JONATHAN TURLEY: Democrats' rabid anti-ICE resistance in LA against Trump could backfire
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was in his element over the weekend. After scenes of burning cars and attacks on ICE personnel, Newsom declared that this was all "an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act." No, he was not speaking of the attacks on law enforcement or property. He was referring to President Donald Trump's call to deploy the National Guard to protect federal officers. Newsom is planning to challenge the deployment as cities like Glendale are cancelling contracts to house detainees and reaffirming that local police will not assist the federal government. Trump has the authority under Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy the National Guard if the governor is "unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The administration is saying that that is precisely what is unfolding in California, where mobs have attacked vehicles and trapped federal personnel. Most critics are challenging the deployment on policy grounds, arguing that it is an unnecessary escalation. However, even critics like Berkeley Law Dean Erwin have admitted that "Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this." There is a fair debate over whether this is needed at this time, but the president is allowed to reach a different conclusion. Trump wants the violence to end now as opposed to escalating as it did in the Rodney King riots or the later riots after George Floyd's death, causing billions in property damage and many deaths. Courts will be asked to halt the order because it did not technically go through Newsom to formally call out the National Guard. Section 12406 grants Trump the authority to call out the Guard and employs a mandatory term for governors, who "shall" issue the president's order. In the memo, Trump also instructed federal officials "to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau." Newsom is clearly refusing to issue the orders or coordinate the deployment. Even if such challenges are successful, Trump can clearly flood the zone with federal authority. Indeed, the obstruction could escalate the matter further, prompting Trump to consider using the Insurrection Act, which would allow troops to participate directly in civilian law enforcement. In 1958, President Eisenhower used the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court's orders ending racial segregation in schools. The Trump administration has already claimed that these riots "constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States." In support of such a claim, the administration could cite many of the Democratic leaders now denouncing the claim. After January 6th, liberal politicians and professors insisted that the riot was an "insurrection" and claimed that Trump and dozens of Republicans could be removed from ballots under the 14th Amendment. Liberal professors insisted that Trump's use of the word "fight" on January 6th and his questioning of the results of an election did qualify as an insurrection. They argued that you merely need to show "an assemblage of people" who are "resisting the law" and "using force or intimidation" for "a public purpose." The involvement of inciteful language from politicians only reinforced these claims. Sound familiar? Democrats are using this order to deflect from their own escalation of the tensions over the past several months. From Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz calling ICE officers "Gestapo" to others calling them "fascists" and "Nazis," Democratic leaders have been ignoring objections that they are fueling the violent and criminal responses. It did not matter. It was viewed as good politics. While Newsom and figures like New Jersey Democrat Sen. Cory Booker have called these "peaceful" protests, we have also seen rocks, and Molotov cocktails thrown at police as vehicles were torched. Police have had to use tear gas, "flash bang" grenades, and rubber bullets to quell these "peaceful" protesters. There appears little interest in deescalation on either side. For the Trump administration, images of rioters riding in celebration around burning cars with Mexican flags are only likely to reinforce the support of the majority of Americans for the enforcement of immigration laws. For Democrats, they have gone "all in" on opposing ICE and these enforcement operations despite support from roughly 30 percent of the public. Some Democrats are now playing directly to the mob. A Los Angeles City Council member, Eunisses Hernandez, reportedly urged anti-law enforcement protesters to "escalate" their tactics against ICE officers: "They know how quickly we mobilize, that's why they're changing tactics. Because community defense works and our resistance has slowed them down before… and if they're escalating their tactics, then so are we. When they show up, we gotta show up even stronger." So, L.A. officials are maintaining the sanctuary status of the city, barring the cooperation of local police, and calling on citizens to escalate their resistance after a weekend of violent attacks. Others have posted the locations of ICE facilities to allow better tracking of operations, while cities like Glendale are closing facilities. In Washington, House Speaker Hakim Jeffries has pledged to unmask the identities of individual ICE officers who have been covering their faces to protect themselves and their families from growing threats. While Democrats have not succeeded in making a convincing political case for opposing immigration enforcement, they may be making a stronger case for federal deployment in increasingly hostile blue cities.

Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Waymo suspends robotaxi rides near LA protests after 5 cars are set ablaze
Waymo suspended robotaxi service in downtown Los Angeles on Sunday after five vehicles were set on fire during protests against President Donald Trump 's immigration raids in the city. Photos show Waymo cars covered in anti-ICE graffiti burning in the street, engulfed in smoke. A spokesperson for Waymo confirmed to Business Insider that five vehicles had been vandalized during the protests. The company temporarily suspended service in downtown LA and doesn't think its vehicles were intentionally targeted, the spokesperson said. Waymo is working with the Los Angeles Police Department, they added. On Sunday night, the LAPD said on X that "burning lithium-ion batteries release toxic gases." Electric vehicles often use lithium-ion batteries. The spokesperson told BI that Waymo, which Alphabet owns, operates more than 300 vehicles in LA and is continuing operations in other parts of the city. It's not the first time that Waymo vehicles have been targeted in California. Last year, a crowd in San Francisco set one of the robotaxis on fire during Lunar New Year celebrations amid a wave of distrust about driverless vehicles. The protests broke out on Friday after an immigration raid in the city. Over the weekend, Trump bypassed California Gov. Gavin Newsom 's authority and ordered 2,000 National Guard members to the LA area. Despite the dramatic images, the protests have largely been peaceful, according to multiple reports. The demonstrations have become a political lightning rod between Newsom and Trump, and the governor has announced that he's suing the administration. They may, however, serve as an olive branch between the president and Elon Musk, who had an ugly falling out last week.