Millions of children to suffer from Trump aid cuts
When he grows up, five-year-old Ahmad wants to be "stronger than Spider-Man". But his dream clashes with a harsh reality -- the Jordanian boy has a serious disability, and major US aid cuts mean he will likely miss out on vital care.
Like him, millions of children around the world are suffering from the sweeping cuts ordered by US President Donald Trump.
All are grappling with hardship in one form or other: war, crime, global warming, poverty, disease and more.
Ahmad, who has a spinal malformation, cannot hold his torso upright and is paralysed from the waist down.
The boy was receiving physiotherapy sessions from Handicap International "to strengthen his upper limbs and enable him, later on, to walk with crutches," said his father, Mahmud Abdulrahman, a 30-year-old day labourer.
Abdulrahman said the non-governmental organisation was also due to provide orthotics and prosthetics to straighten Ahmad's lower limbs -- none of which he could afford on his meagre salary. Now, none of that will happen.
The Wehdat Rehabilitation Centre they attended in Jordan's capital Amman was one of the first victims of Trump's aid cuts.
More than 600 patients found themselves deprived of care overnight.
Prosthetics already specially designed for around 30 children, as well as wheelchairs, could not be delivered to them, on Washington's orders.
"The movement that was taught will be forgotten," said Dr Abdullah Hmoud, a physiotherapist who worked at the centre, describing the potential losses as "catastrophic".
There is also emotional suffering. When he realised he would no longer see his physiotherapist, "Ahmad stopped eating for three days.
He didn't want to get up," said his father. With the closure of his rehabilitation centre, "I feel like they want to kill me," the boy said in a hushed voice.
Ahmad's story is one among many in a wave of horror accounts surfacing from the humanitarian sector since the United States said it was cutting 83 percent of its aid.
USAID -- which the Trump administration has dismantled -- had supported 42 percent of all aid distributed globally, with a $42.8 billion budget.
At a refugee camp in Bangladesh, home to a million Rohingya Muslims who fled persecution in Myanmar, half of them children, Save the Children has been forced to ration food.
The NGO fears desperate families could be pushed to hand over daughters to traffickers or send sons on dangerous sea crossings to Malaysia for work.
In Mozambique, Solidarites International had to shut down a programme providing food and water to internally displaced people, including tens of thousands of children.
In Malawi, similar numbers will no longer receive free school meals, according to another NGO which requested anonymity for fear of US reprisals.
Without food, many children will drop out of school -- all the more galling, the NGO said, as millions of meals are reportedly left to rot in warehouses due to the US decision.
"It's like the rug is being pulled out from under their feet," said one staff member. - 'Last lifelines' - Women and girls are often the first to lose out, with their education traditionally sacrificed first.
The Norwegian Refugee Council said it will have to "significantly reduce" aid to women and girls in Afghanistan because the US funds paid for many of the female staff who worked with them. "
The very last lifelines for many women and girls will be taken away," said Camilla Waszink, a director at the organisation.
Malnutrition already affects 150 million children under five, and the numbers could surge.
"Millions of additional children will suffer stunted growth" and impaired brain capacity, said Kevin Goldberg, director of Solidarites International.
In another blow to children, Washington is expected to drastically reduce funding for vaccination programmes in poor countries. Sania Nishtar, CEO of the Vaccine Alliance, warned the cuts -- if confirmed -- could result in "an estimated 1.3 million children dying from vaccine-preventable diseases".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
19-05-2025
- Observer
Joe Biden diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer
Washington - Former US president Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an "aggressive" form of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones, and is reviewing treatment options, his office said Sunday. On Friday, the 82-year-old Democrat -- whose son Beau Biden died of cancer in 2015 -- was diagnosed with the disease after he experienced urinary symptoms and a prostate nodule was found, a statement from his office said. "While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive, which allows for effective management. The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians," it continued. US President Donald Trump, who has long derided political rival Biden over his cognitive abilities, said he was "saddened" by the news. "We extend our warmest and best wishes to Jill and the family, and we wish Joe a fast and successful recovery," Republican Trump said on Truth Social, referring to Biden's wife, Jill Biden. "Joe is a fighter," Biden's vice president, Kamala Harris, who stepped in as Democratic nominee in the battle against Trump after Biden dropped out of last year's presidential election, said in a post on X. "I know he will face this challenge with the same strength, resilience, and optimism that have always defined his life and leadership. We are hopeful for a full and speedy recovery," she continued. Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in men, with the American Cancer Society reporting that one in eight men in the United States is diagnosed with it over their lifetime. While it is highly treatable if discovered early, it is the second leading cause of cancer death in men, the organization said. Hormone therapy is a common treatment that can shrink tumors and slow cancer growth, but it is not a cure. According to the statement, Biden's cancer was found to have "a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5)." Prostate cancer that looks "very abnormal" is assigned the highest rating, Grade 5, according to the American Cancer Society. The Gleason Score goes up to 10, indicating the seriousness of Biden's disease. - 'Watch me' - Biden left office in January this year as the oldest serving US president in history. He was dogged by questions, including from Democratic voters, over his health and age for much of his term -- and whether he could handle the office's demands. His response was brisk: "Watch me." In July last year, he was forced to drop his reelection bid after a disastrous debate against Trump in which fears about his decline and cognitive abilities came surging to the fore. Support rocketed for Harris as she stepped to the plate, but she eventually lost to Trump. Biden, who beat Trump at the polls in 2020, maintains that he could have won the 2024 election too, but questions have long swirled over the responses of staff and key Democrats to his decline. They have flared with the upcoming release of a new book on his "disastrous" choice to run again, and the publication last week of a recording of him speaking hesitantly and struggling to recall key events and dates. Biden's life has been marked by personal tragedy. In 1972, his first wife and baby daughter were killed in a car crash. His son Beau Biden died aged 46 of an aggressive form of brain cancer in 2015, a loss which touched many Americans. In the wake of Beau Biden's death, then-president Barack Obama launched a "cancer moonshot" bid to corral the disease in the United States, tasking Biden, then his vice president, with leading the effort. "It's personal for me," Biden said at the time. "But it's also personal for nearly every American and millions of people around the world. We all know someone who has had cancer, or is fighting to beat it." "Nobody has done more to find breakthrough treatments for cancer in all its forms than Joe," Obama said Sunday. "I am certain he will fight this challenge with his trademark resolve and grace," he added in a statement on X. Trump's administration cut cancer research funding by 31 percent in the first three months of 2025 compared to the same period last year, a Senate report showed earlier this month. Americans in the capital Washington, lamented the diagnosis Sunday. Ariale Booker, a Washington resident who said her mother and grandmother had both died of cancer, described it as "heartbreaking." "I think that's just really sad," she told AFP. "His last years, his life's going to be hard."
Observer
18-05-2025
- Observer
WHO looks ahead to life without the US
Emma Farge The writer is Senior Correspondent at Reuters Hundreds of officials from the World Health Organization will join donors and diplomats in Geneva from Monday with one question dominating their thoughts - how to cope with crises from mpox to cholera without their main funder, the United States. The annual assembly, with its week of sessions, votes and policy decisions, usually showcases the scale of the UN agency set up to tackle disease outbreaks, approve vaccines and support health systems worldwide. This year - since US President Donald Trump started the year-long process to leave the WHO with an executive order on his first day in office in January - the main theme is scaling down. "Our goal is to focus on the high-value stuff," Daniel Thornton, the WHO's director of coordinated resource mobilisation, said. Just what that "high-value stuff" will be is up for discussion. Health officials have said the WHO's work in providing guidelines for countries on new vaccines and treatments for conditions from obesity to HIV will remain a priority. One WHO slideshow for the event, shared with donors and seen by Reuters, suggested work on approving new medicines and responding to outbreaks would be protected, while training programmes and offices in wealthier countries could be closed. The United States had provided around 18 per cent of the WHO's funding. "We've got to make do with what we have," said one Western diplomat who asked not to be named. Staff have been getting ready - cutting managers and budgets - ever since Trump's January announcement in a rush of directives and aid cuts that have disrupted a string of multilateral pacts and initiatives. The year-long delay, mandated under US law, means the US is still a WHO member - its flag still flies outside the Geneva HQ - until its official departure date on January 21, 2026. Trump - who accused the WHO of mishandling Covid, which it denies - muddied the waters days after his statement by saying he might consider rejoining the agency if its staff "clean it up". But global health envoys say there has since been little sign of a change of heart. So the WHO is planning for life with a $600-million hole in the budget for this year and cuts of 21 per cent over the next two-year period. As the United States prepares to exit, China is set to become the biggest provider of state fees - one of the WHO's main streams of funding alongside donations. China's contribution will rise from just over 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the total state fee pot under an overhaul of the funding system agreed in 2022. The United States had provided around 18 per cent of the WHO's funding. "We have to adapt ourselves to multilateral organisations without the Americans. Life goes on," Chen Xu, China's ambassador to Geneva, told reporters last month. Others have suggested this might be a time for an even broader overhaul, rather than continuity under a reshuffled hierarchy of backers. "Does WHO need all its committees? Does it need to be publishing thousands of publications each year?' said Anil Soni, chief executive of the WHO Foundation, an independent fund-raising body for the agency. He said the changes had prompted a re-examination of the agency's operations, including whether it should be focussed on details like purchasing petrol during emergencies. There was also the urgent need to make sure key projects do not collapse during the immediate cash crisis. That meant going to donors with particular interests in those areas, including pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic groups, Soni said. The ELMA Foundation, which focuses on children's health in Africa with offices in the US, South Africa and Uganda, has already recently stepped in with $2 million for the Global Measles and Rubella Laboratory Network known as Gremlin - more than 700 labs which track infectious disease threats, he added. Other business at the assembly includes the rubber-stamping a historic agreement on how to handle future pandemics and drumming up more cash from donors at an investment round. But the focus will remain on funding under the new world order. In the run up to the event, a WHO manager sent an e-mail to staff asking them to volunteer, without extra pay, as ushers.
Observer
15-05-2025
- Observer
Protectionism will not protect against pandemics
As many Global North countries turn inward, foreign assistance has become an easy target. The decimation of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has dominated headlines, but the United Kingdom and many European countries have also cut their foreign-aid budgets. Policymakers in these countries view this spending as a form of charity, and think that bolstering their economic and military might can deliver more benefits for more people. This instinct is short-sighted. It recalls the great-power ambitions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that culminated in two devastating world wars. The global governance architecture that emerged from this unprecedented tragedy – including the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations, bilateral foreign-aid programmes, and NGOs like CARE and Oxfam – initially focused on responding to reconstruction needs and humanitarian crises, before turning to development. Despite its flaws, this approach helped lift more than one billion people out of extreme poverty and build stable and thriving economies around the world. The global health system is a case in point. Built with funding from the United States, the UK, and other wealthy countries, it has substantially reduced infectious disease rates and health inequalities, creating a safer and more secure world. Five years ago, this system was instrumental in detecting Covid-19, tracking its spread, and mobilising a global response. But Covid-19 also illustrated how poorer countries and households are caught in an inequality-pandemic cycle. In other words, contrary to claims that the Global North gives too much aid and receives too little in return, it is the Global South that is getting the bad deal. After compiling and analysing hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the Global Council on Inequality, Aids and Pandemics (of which we are members) found that poor and marginalised people struggle to access health services during disease outbreaks, leaving them more susceptible to infection, illness, and death. Viruses and other contagions prey on these vulnerabilities, turning outbreaks into epidemics, and epidemics into pandemics, which deepen inequalities and reinforce the cycle. In the early days of Covid-19, this inequality-pandemic cycle was on display in Global North countries. White-collar professionals worked safely from home, thanks to high-speed Internet and teleconferencing platforms, whereas small businesses and factories closed, throwing blue-collar workers into financial crisis. In these countries, the pandemic hit low-income and Black and minority communities the hardest. The unequal impact of the pandemic was also felt between countries. Vaccines were developed in record time – the result of a remarkable multilateral investment in strategic industries – but high-income countries purchased most of them, and then refused to share excess doses with the developing world. This vaccine hoarding caused more than one million deaths and cost the global economy an estimated $2.3 trillion. The same pattern played out in the early response to the Aids pandemic. At the end of the twentieth century, effective antiretroviral drugs became available in the Global North. But Aids continued to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the Global South, and especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. The unconscionable denial of access to lifesaving treatment sparked global outrage, leading to the establishment of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAIDS), the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) in the US. In 2002, fewer than one million people living with HIV had access to antiretrovirals, whereas more than 30 million do today; expanding access to treatment has so far saved an estimated 26 million lives. And, before the recent foreign-aid cuts, the world could have achieved its goal of ending Aids as a public health threat by 2030. The decades-long journey to end Aids has underscored the importance of investing in health systems, medical research, and vaccine and drug production in both the Global North and the Global South. Moreover, it has highlighted that people's living conditions – often called the social determinants of health, including job security, income level, access to education and affordable housing, and respect for rights – determine their well-being. For example, in 1996 Botswana, which was hit particularly hard by the Aids pandemic, effectively added a year of secondary school to its public education system. This policy created a natural, population-level experiment on the effect of schooling on the risk of HIV infection. An analysis of huge cohorts of young people who went to school under the old system and the new system found that each additional year of schooling reduced a young person's risk of HIV infection by 8.1 percentage points. This protective effect was strongest among women, whose risk of contracting HIV decreased by 11.6 percentage points for each additional year of school. Building fairer societies leads to healthier populations that are better prepared to react to disease outbreaks and prevent pandemics. By contrast, defunding public education, slashing social safety nets, imposing tariffs, closing borders, cutting foreign aid, and disengaging from multilateral cooperation will widen inequalities, fuel political instability, accelerate economic migration, and create the conditions for viruses to thrive. This is evident in Ukraine, where an over-burdened healthcare system has accelerated the spread of drug-resistant infections through war-torn communities. Meanwhile, outbreaks of Ebola, mpox, measles, and Marburg are on the rise, partly owing to globalisation and climate change. Weakening the global health system will enable these outbreaks to fester and spread, taking lives, deepening inequalities, and potentially destabilising societies. Experts are already warning that cuts to US programmes (including those delivered by USAID) could lead to a 400 per cent increase in Aids deaths by 2029. The abiding lesson of pandemics is that no one is safe until everyone is safe. Building walls and shutting out the world will not protect people. The only way to do that is by reducing inequalities and investing in the global health system. In this context, cooperation is the ultimate act of self-interest. @Project Syndicate, 2025 Michael Marmot The writer is Director of the Institute of Health Equity and Professor of Epidemiology at University College London Winnie Byanyima The writer is Executive Director of UNAIDS and an under-secretary-general at the United Nations
