US aid cuts could lead to millions more HIV/AIDS deaths by 2029, UN warns
The United States' decision to make cuts to the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) could result in six million extra HIV infections and four million more AIDS-related deaths by 2029, according to the 2025 Global AIDS Update released on Thursday.
'HIV programmes in low- and middle-income countries have been rocked by sudden, major financial disruptions that threaten to reverse years of progress in the response to HIV,' the UNAIDS report said.
'Wars and conflict, widening economic inequalities, geopolitical shifts and climate change shocks – the likes of which are unprecedented in the global HIV response – are stoking instability and straining multilateral cooperation,' it added.
According to the report, people acquiring HIV and those dying from AIDS-related causes were at their lowest levels in 'more than 30 years'.
However, by the end of 2024, the decline in numbers was 'not sufficient' to end AIDS as a public threat by 2030.
Still, the report found that an estimated 1.3 million people acquired HIV in 2024, 40 percent less than in 2024.
In new infections, there was a 56 percent decline in sub-Saharan Africa, which is home to half of all people who 'acquired HIV globally in 2024'.
'Five countries, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, were on track to achieve a 90 percent decline in new infections by 2030 compared with 2010,' the UN added.
However, the significance of Trump's cut to the programme is immense, as the US was the largest donor of humanitarian assistance worldwide.
'The sudden withdrawal of the single biggest contributor to the global HIV response disrupted treatment and prevention programmes around the world,' the report said.
While many countries still have enough life-saving antiretroviral drugs and clinics that support those most vulnerable to the infection – including gay men, sex workers and teenage girls – the cut in funding has forced the facilities to close down and prevention programmes to peter out.
UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima told the Reuters news agency that 'prevention was hit harder than treatment' by the cuts.
'Key populations were the worst affected … they depended on tailored services by community leaders, and those were the first to go,' Byanyima said.
However, even before Trump made the decision to scale back the support shortly after coming into office in January, donors, mainly European countries, were scaling back development assistance.
'They've told us that it has to do with defence spending,' she said, adding that figures showed 'global health [spending] peaked and then it also started declining with the Ukraine war'.
PEPFAR was launched in 2003 by US President George W Bush, and is the biggest-ever commitment by any country focused on a single disease. UNAIDS called the programme a 'lifeline' for countries with high HIV rates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
2 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Swiss luxury watchmakers slip after Trump tariff blow
Agencies Shares in Swiss luxury watchmakers, including Richemont and Swatch, were volatile in early trade on Monday, underscoring the challenge the industry faces after U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a steep 39% tariff on Switzerland. The sector, which exported watches worth 26 billion Swiss francs ($32.79 billion) in 2024, is already under pressure from a stronger franc and falling global demand. Watch exports are on track to hit their lowest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. 'The impact of the U.S. tariffs, if they stay at 39%, could be devastating for numerous brands in Switzerland,' said Jean-Philippe Bertschy, an analyst at Vontobel. Shares in Richemont and Swatch were both down around 1% at 09:06 a.m. GMT, paring back losses after earlier falling as much as 3.4% and 5%, respectively. Bertschy linked the move to hopes of Switzerland still getting a better deal as the tariffs are effective as of August 7. Swatch Group CEO Nick Hayek, meanwhile, called on Swiss President Karin Keller-Sutter to meet Trump. A separate report by Reuters said Switzerland's government would hold an extraordinary cabinet meeting on Monday to discuss its response to tariffs, which threaten to inflict heavy damage to its luxury goods industry. The duties are scheduled to go into effect on Thursday, giving Switzerland a small window to strike a better deal. Switzerland was left stunned on Friday after Trump hit the country with one of the highest tariffs in his global trade reset, with industry associations warning that tens of thousands of jobs were at risk. President Keller-Sutter told Reuters on Friday that Switzerland had given U.S. goods virtually free access to its market, and Swiss companies had made very important direct investments in the U.S. 'The president (Trump) is really focused on the trade deficit, because he thinks that this is a loss for the United States, that every year with Swiss exports, the United States loses, well, 38.5 billion (francs),' she told Reuters. 'Tariffs can change at any moment due to the unpredictability of the Trump administration,' said Georges Mari, co-owner of Zurich-based investment firm Rossier, Mari & Associates, which holds shares in Swatch, adding that it is 'impossible to make a serious forecast.' Monday was the first day of trading following the U.S. tariff announcement, as markets were closed on Friday for the Swiss National Day holiday. Stocks and the Swiss franc both tumbled in response to heavy levies. An index of Swiss blue-chip stocks hit its lowest level since mid-April on Monday, as shares in banks, luxury retailers, and pharma companies dropped. The SMI index was last down 0.6% on the day, compared with a 0.6% rise in the regional STOXX 600 index. The Swiss franc was the worst-performing major currency against the dollar, which was last up 0.7% at 0.809 francs, not far off Friday's one-month highs.
Qatar Tribune
2 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Moscow summons German envoy over Japanese claim to Kuril Islands
DPA Moscow The German ambassador to Russia, Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, has been summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry. In a protest note, the ministry on Monday warned Germany not to cast doubt on the results of World War II by recognizing Japanese claims on Russia's southern Kuril Islands. The islands' status is part of the post-war order recognized by the United Nations, it added. 'Russian sovereignty is undisputed here.' Moscow accused Germany's ambassador to Japan, Petra Sigmund, of questioning Russian sovereignty over the islands, and said the issue was 'particularly mocking' in the year of the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. Germany's embassy in Moscow rebuffed the criticism. 'We reject the accusation that the statements allegedly violated Russia's sovereignty.' The comments were believed to be linked to a visit by Sigmund and another diplomat to the Japanese city of Nemuro, on the island of Hokkaido, which is near the southern Kuril Islands. Lambsdorff highlighted that the visit was being used as an occasion for protest 'while at the same time Russia is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine in the most serious way every day with several hundred thousand soldiers.' The ambassador has repeatedly denounced the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Qatar Tribune
2 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Legal challenge to Trump's tariffs likely headed to Supreme Court
Agencies A federal appeals panel on Thursday appeared skeptical of US President Donald Trump's argument that a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets gave him the power to impose tariffs. Regardless of how the court rules, the litigation is almost certainly headed to the US Supreme Court. Here is what you need to know about the dispute, which Trump has called 'America's big case,' and how it is likely to play out in the months ahead. The litigation challenges the tariffs Trump imposed on a broad range of US trading partners in April, as well as tariffs imposed in February against China, Canada and Mexico. It centers around Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to address 'unusual and extraordinary' threats during national emergencies. Trump has said that trade imbalances, declining manufacturing power and the cross-border flow of drugs justified the tariffs under IEEPA. A dozen Democratic-led states and five small US businesses challenging the tariffs argue that IEEPA does not cover tariffs and that the US Constitution grants Congress, not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes. A loss for Trump would also undermine the latest round of sweeping tariffs on dozens of countries that he unveiled late Thursday. Trump has made tariffs a cornerstone of his economic plan, arguing they will promote domestic manufacturing and substitute for income taxes. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on Thursday in the case. The panel of 11 judges sharply questioned the government about Trump's use of IEEPA, but did not rule from the bench. The Federal Circuit has not said when it will issue a decision, but its briefing schedule suggests it intends to move quickly. Meanwhile, the tariffs remain in effect after the Federal Circuit paused a lower court's ruling declaring them illegal. A Federal Circuit ruling would almost certainly not end the litigation, as the losing party is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. If the Federal Circuit rules against Trump, the court could put its own ruling on hold while the government appeals to the Supreme Court. This approach would maintain the status quo and allow the nine justices to consider the matter more thoroughly. The justices themselves could also issue an 'administrative stay' that would temporarily pause the Federal Circuit's decision while it considers a request from the Justice Department for more permanent relief. The Supreme Court is not obligated to review every case appealed to it, but it is widely expected to weigh in on Trump's tariffs because of the weighty constitutional questions at the heart of the case. If the Federal Circuit rules in the coming weeks, there is still time for the Supreme Court to add the case to its regular docket for the 2025-2026 term, which begins on October 6. The Supreme Court could rule before the end of the year, but that would require it to move quickly. There is no consensus among court-watchers about what the Supreme Court will do. Critics of Trump's tariffs are optimistic their side will win. They point to the Supreme Court's decision from 2023 that blocked President Joe Biden from forgiving student loan debt. In that ruling, the justices limited the authority of the executive branch to take action on issues of 'vast economic and political significance' except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. The justices in other cases, however, have endorsed a broad view of presidential power, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. Can importers seek refunds for tariffs paid? If Trump loses at the Supreme Court, importers are likely to seek refunds of tariffs already paid. This would be a lengthy process given the large number of anticipated claims. Federal regulations dictate that such requests would be first heard by US Customs and Border Protection. If that agency denies a refund request, the importer can appeal to the Court of International Trade. There is precedent for tariff refund requests being granted. Since May, CBP has been processing refunds to importers who inadvertently overpaid duties because of tariff 'stacking' — where multiple overlapping tariffs are applied to the same imports. And in the 1990s, after the Court of International Trade struck down a tax on exporters that was being used to finance improvements to US harbors, the court set up a process for issuing refunds. That decision was upheld by both the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court. Would a courtroom defeat unravel Trump's trade deals? Trump has used the threat of emergency tariffs as leverage to secure concessions from trading partners. A loss at the Supreme Court would hamstring Trump in future negotiations. The White House, however, has other ways of imposing tariffs, like a 1962 law that allows the president to investigate imports that threaten national security. Trump has already used that law to put tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, and those levies are not at issue in the case before the Federal Circuit. Some legal experts say a loss for Trump at the Supreme Court would not impact bilateral trade agreements the US has already inked with other countries. Others say that the trade deals alone might not provide sufficient legal authority for taxes on imports and may need to be approved by Congress.
