UN's WFP says 58 million face hunger crisis after huge shortfall in aid
ROME (Reuters) - The U.N. World Food Programme warned on Friday that 58 million people were at risk of extreme hunger or starvation unless urgent funding for food aid is secured, after drastic shortfalls from donors so far this year, including the United States.
The Rome-based agency said it faced a 40% slump in donations in 2025 compared to last year, adding that the shortfall threatened feeding programmes for in 28 crisis zones around the world, including Gaza, Sudan, Syria and Congo.
"WFP is prioritising the worst-affected regions and stretching food rations to maximize impact. But make no mistake, we are approaching a funding cliff with life-threatening consequences," said Rania Dagash-Kamara, WFP Assistant Executive Director for Partnerships and Innovation.
WFP, which describes itself as the world's largest humanitarian organisation, said 343 million people globally were experiencing severe food insecurity, driven by conflict, economic instability, and climate change.
It aims to assist 123 million of them in 2025, nearly half of whom face an imminent loss of food support, it said.
According to WFP's website, the U.N. agency had received just $1.57 billion in funding up until March 24. For the whole of 2024, WFP received $9.75 billion, well below the $21.1 billion it had sought.
WFP did not point the finger at specific countries for cutting contributions, but a breakdown on its website showed the United States, long the biggest donor, had so far contributed just under 10% of the $4.45 billion it gave for the full year 2024.
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is reviewing its foreign aid programmes and has largely shut down the foreign aid agency USAID.
U.S. donations to WFP of food purchased from American farmers were briefly suspended by the Trump administration but resumed in February under a waiver authorising emergency food aid.
Other countries are also falling short of commitments from previous years, the WFP website showed, including Britain, which has said it will slash foreign aid this year to fund a defence buildup.
Anti-poverty group Caritas Europa has said a number of European countries are also looking to cut foreign aid budgets.
WFP said it required $2.49 billion to sustain emergency relief efforts in the coming months in Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Palestine, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, Myanmar, Haiti, Sahel and Lake Chad Basin.
Earlier this week, it said programmes to help prevent malnourishment in children in Yemen, Afghanistan and Syria could be suspended within months if urgent funding was not found. It also announced it was reducing rations for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh due to a lack of resources.
Earlier this month it said it was closing its Southern Africa bureau due to funding constraints.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
22 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
Patriot Mobile Congratulates Trump Mobile on Its New Launch
Grapevine, TX, June 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Patriot Mobile, America's only Christian conservative wireless provider that has, for over 12 years, given back to organizations fighting for America's freedom, today congratulates the Trump Mobile team on launching their new business. 'As trailblazers of the Red Economy back when it was still an uncharted path, Patriot Mobile welcomes more businesses to join us in shaping a values-driven marketplace,' said Glenn Story, Patriot Mobile Founder and CEO. 'Our mission remains as strong as ever. We remain the only wireless provider that is both Christian and conservative. God is at the helm of our business, and we pray for the Trump organizations success.' Founded in 2013, Patriot Mobile has been standing on the front lines defending our God-given rights and freedoms through multiple presidential administrations. The company's mission is to relentlessly fight for our God-given rights and freedoms and to glorify God always. Patriot Mobile contributes millions of dollars every year to organizations that fight for liberty. Patriot Mobile's four pillars of giving are the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the sanctity of life and we support our military and our first responders. 'We are so proud to support organizations that have had such an impact on America. Susan B. Anthony for Life, Students for Life, Concerned Women for America, and Embrace Grace have saved hundreds of thousands of babies. First Liberty and Alliance Defending Freedom have made great strides in landmark cases defending our constitutional rights. Gun Owners of America, Women for Gun Rights and the NRA are on the front lines protecting our Second Amendment. Folds of Honor, Boot Campaign, Warrior Rising and Soldier Strong are working hard to help our veterans,' said Jenny Story, Patriot Mobile COO. 'These are just some examples of the many organizations we have supported over the years. You can see others on our website.' As one of the very few organizations that has been standing in the gap for every American that believes freedom is worth fighting for, Patriot Mobile has never wavered in the face of consistent, repeated attacks in standing for faith, family, and freedom. Patriot Mobile continues to deliver exceptional wireless service on all three major networks at competitive prices backed by top-tier all U.S. based customer service. For more information, go to Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same. Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The tax benefits — and complexities — for business owners hiring kids
Business owners who employ their children in a reasonable but limited capacity at their firms can rake in tax savings and start their kids' first retirement accounts in the process. But the entrepreneurs and their financial advisors or tax professionals must ensure they're diligently keeping the kids' employment records, complying with some variation in state-level rules for business entities and addressing any other potential ramifications, according to Miklos Ringbauer, of Los Angeles-based MiklosCPA, and Kevin Thompson, CEO of Fort Worth, Texas-based RIA firm 9i Capital Group. READ MORE: 24 tax tips for self-employed clients For instance, Ringbauer usually advises clients to restrict their compensation for any summer jobs or other employment for their children to less than $15,000. That's the standard deduction for 2025, the highest amount of income that, in most cases, doesn't carry the requirement to file a return. In turn, the business may deduct the wages as an expense and often avoid Social Security, Medicare, Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes, as well as estate and gift duties. And the child acquires some invaluable lessons about a day's work, alongside potential investments such as a Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA) portfolio with a parent as the custodian or a Roth or traditional individual retirement account. But the benefits won't accrue from brazen attempts by parents to give their kids money. "There's an incredible wealth of information out there and options a business owner and their children can take advantage of legally to help reduce taxes on the parents' side," Ringbauer said. "This could be an incredible wealth transfer, if it is done right and done appropriately." For advisors and their clients, that entails using the same payroll records as they do for any other employees and assigning the kids to perform actual work aligning with their hours and skills. And, of course, they need to "be careful" that they're not running afoul of guidelines for child labor or the so-called kiddie tax on unearned income or investments, Thompson noted. "You can't pay your kid $15,000 over the summer for raking leaves. It has to be reasonable compensation, and you have to have them in your system," he said. "Having the IRS come into your place just because you paid your kid some money over the summer is not a good look." READ MORE: The basics of S corporations — and the pitfalls for small businesses Whether they're working for their parents or another employer, a summer job can introduce young people to concepts such as the difference between an independent contractor and a W-2 employee and any wittholdings from their paycheck, according a recent guide to IRS rules for teens by Jill Kenady, a tax materials specialist with the University of Illinois Tax School. Documents like a tax checklist compiled by the school, and IRS releases for students and summer employees could aid parents and youngsters navigating the rules, Kenady wrote. "Summertime is near, which means teens will start jobs, which is the initiation into adulthood," she wrote. "These jobs offer a sense of independence along with a wonderful way to earn their own money. However, with great earnings come significant responsibilities, specifically tax responsibilities. It is your job as a tax practitioner to help teens and their parents navigate the tax laws and the impact of summer employment." The advantages to parents who employ their kids can pile up so high that Ringbauer said he begins speaking with business owners about the possibilities shortly after the child is born. As long as they comply with the rules, a pediatrician or a child dentist could consider hiring their kid to act as a model for advertisements or pictures on the website for the small business, he noted. On the other hand, Ringbauer stressed that it's important for the parents to talk through their ideas with an advisor or tax pro before putting anything in motion. The entity classifications of a business and independent contractor or W-2 employee status for the child could bring more complexity to their decisions. Then there are the more basic concerns about any potential for accidents on the job or the challenges of a parent working in the same office as their child. READ MORE: 3 tax strategies for summer daycare, jobs and vacation rentals Among prospective clients, the most common problem is that it can look like a business owner is trying to simply transfer money to their child "without actual work or suitable work," Ringbauer said. "Eventually, they didn't turn into my client, because they didn't like the answers I gave them," he said, recalling one business owner who was trying to skirt the rules. "After-the-fact errors are the biggest pitfalls, and it's across the board." However, the array of potential strategies for small business owners provide "limitless reasons and opportunities to do it right, and the benefits significantly outweigh the immediate gratification of savings in dollars," Ringbauer added. The incentives explain why the method "makes a lot of sense" for many business owners and kids who could open their own retirement accounts, Thompson said. But there are some caveats. For example, those assets could affect possible financial aid for college or other benefit programs that take net worth into account. "We have to look at the implications on them saving dollars under their own names," Thompson said. "I have to be careful, because if they have too much money under their name it could ruin their benefits." Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Newsweek
29 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?
Israel's campaign to set back Iran's nuclear program reflects a shared, if mostly unspoken, ambition among Western and Arab allies: to end Iran's clerical regime. The terrible record of regime change efforts by the West has long muted such hopes—but Israel's early successes in the war are giving them interesting new life. The assessment of whether the regime might actually collapse is certainly a factor in America's calculations of how much deeper to involve itself. Washington's stated position of non-involvement is, of course, implausible. Israel would never have acted against U.S. wishes—it depends on America for the spare parts that keep its air force running, a diplomatic shield at the United Nations, legal cover against international tribunals, and critical support in intercepting Iranian missile and drone retaliation. That Israel also struck right around the 60-day deadline President Donald Trump had given Iran for engaging in useful talks—which Iran brazenly flouted—also points in the direction of coordination. But on the other hand, Trump is averse to military action and the United States has vulnerable military personnel, assets, and bases scattered across the region. That said, only the United States has the bunker-busting capability to fully take out the most fortified elements of Iran's nuclear program: the underground facilities at Natanz and Fordow. There is a scenario, after Israel does everything else, in which such an option may look attractive. It is reasonable to expect the Trump administration to first try a return to diplomacy, but of a more muscular variety than it had telegraphed in recent months. The U.S. previously seemed to be headed towards a renewed version of the Obama-era nuclear deal that Trump walked away from (unwisely, in my view) in 2018. But that was before the humiliation the regime has endured since Israel began its strikes Friday. Israeli jets have controlled Iran's skies, having wiped out air defenses; a host of senior figures, including the heads of the military and Revolutionary Guards as well as the top nuclear scientists, have been killed; many missile launchers have been disabled and a host of nuclear sites badly damaged. Most missiles sent from Iran have been intercepted, though some did get through, killing more than 20 people in Israel. With the regime thus exposed, perhaps Trump will finally issue a long-overdue ultimatum to Iran's clerical regime—not only to hand over its enriched uranium but also to end its outrageous efforts to undermine its neighbors with proxy militias and discontinue production of long-range ballistic missiles. If this happens and Iran stuck to its old positions, a U.S. military strike becomes more plausible. And from there, it is easy to envision escalation, especially if Iran hits at American targets like the Al Udeid airbase in Qatar. At that point, undermining the regime itself—through attacks on energy infrastructure, cyberattacks, information campaigns, and more—might be openly on the table. Would any of that be defensible? Do countries not retain the right to govern themselves? Such questions are never clear—but the case for regime change in Iran is good. By nearly every standard, the Islamic Republic has lost its legitimacy. It governs without meaningful consent, relying on violent repression, censorship, and an unaccountable clerical elite. It is anti-democratic by design, structurally incapable of reform, and fundamentally at odds with the aspirations of Iran's overwhelmingly young, urban, and globally aware population. It remains standing not through popular support but because of its efficiency in suppressing dissent, its control over the economy, and the fear it instills. Internationally, Iran's legitimacy is further eroded by its rather obvious pursuit of nuclear weapons, sponsorship of terrorism, and serial violations of human rights. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. Smoke from an explosion in southwest Tehran billows on June 16, 2025. ATTA KENARE / AFP/Getty Images The Iranian proxy militia project has devastated the region: Hezbollah has turned Lebanon into a failed state; Hamas and Islamic Jihad have perpetuated cycles of war in Gaza and the West Bank; the Houthis have destabilized Yemen; Shiite militias in Iraq have terrorized civilians. Uncoiling these tentacles would not just restore regional balance—it would free Arab states from the permanent hostage situation engineered in Tehran. Given all this, one could certainly argue that the Iranian regime has lost its right to demand noninterference by being a menace to its region. But that still leaves the question of practicality. After all, history is littered with failed regime change efforts from outsiders. The U.S.-backed invasion of Iraq toppled Saddam Hussein, but unleashed chaos, insurgency, and years of sectarian war. In Afghanistan, 20 years of Western nation-building collapsed in 11 days, ending with the odious Taliban back in power in Kabul. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a debacle that only strengthened Cuba's Fidel Castro. The CIA-backed overthrow of Chilean socialist Salvador Allende led to decades of dictatorship and considerable regret. More recently, Libya collapsed into anarchy after the fall of Moammar Gaddafi, and U.S. attempts to influence regime change in Venezuela have gone nowhere. What these cases teach is not that regime change is always doomed, but that external actors cannot impose internal legitimacy, decency, and stability. You cannot liberate a people who aren't prepared to act—or who might see you as the greater threat. Iran is a deeply nationalistic society, even if the people despise the Islamist regime. Any intervention that appears externally driven risks strengthening the regime's narrative and provoking backlash. The Revolutionary Guards thrive on the image of Iran as a besieged fortress. A misstep could entrench them further. So while regime change is not impossible, it must ultimately be homemade. The challenge is that the clerics have constructed a dense architecture of fear, dependency, surveillance, and economic patronage that enriched the men with guns. Civil society is fragmented, the opposition in exile is divided, and many are economically tied to the state. The most plausible scenario is a palace coup: a rupture within the military, perhaps even inside the Revolutionary Guards themselves. Both organizations have suffered humiliating setbacks in recent days, and it is not inconceivable that to protect their corrupt financial interests they might dump the aging clerical leadership, beginning with 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, compelling top clerics to flee Tehran. Might Trump authorize the carefully calibrated steps that could lead to such a scenario? For all his hawkish rhetoric, America's problematic president has shown a consistent aversion to prolonged military engagements—on top of an odd disdain for his own military and even for the Western alliance. He criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, avoided conflict with North Korea, and even declined to retaliate militarily after Iran shot down a U.S. drone in 2019. Yet he is also deeply drawn to dramatic successes and personal credit. Israel's successful strike campaign may prove tempting. A scenario where Trump issues a sweeping ultimatum to Iran, demands the dismantling of its missile and proxy projects, and positions himself as the architect of Iran's "freedom moment" might fit this brand. What follows could be very interesting indeed. At a moment of grave uncertainty, one thing is not in doubt: Even though a period of chaos may follow a collapse of the regime, the 90 million people of Iran deserve better than the theocratic prison they've been consigned to since 1979. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
