Brazil's President Lula Responds to Trump's Surprise Tariff Threat
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
US to burn $9.7 million worth of USAID-purchased contraceptives rather than deliver them to women overseas
The Trump administration is set to destroy $9.7 million worth of US-purchased contraceptives rather than deliver them to women overseas, following the dismantling of foreign assistance programs carried out by the US Agency for International Development, or USAID. The 'preliminary decision' to destroy the USAID-procured birth control was confirmed by a State Department spokesperson, who said the cost of incinerating them would be $167,000. The contraceptives have been housed in a warehouse in Geel, Belgium. The Belgian foreign ministry said it was engaged in diplomatic talks with the US embassy to work to find alternative solutions for the supplies. The contraceptives are mostly long-lasting types of birth control, such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and injectables, a US congressional aide told CNN. It is not clear exactly when the supplies will be destroyed, according to the aide. 'They have to double incinerate the products because they contain high levels of hormones and they don't want to risk leaking the byproducts out in the environment, which likely adds to the cost,' the congressional aide said. 'The Trump administration is quite literally burning taxpayer money.' A list of the supplies, shared with CNN by another source with knowledge of the warehouse stock, shows that the contraceptives include copper IUDs, rod implants, birth control injections, and levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol tablets. Some have USAID branding but the majority do not, according to the source's list. Most of the products expire in 2028 or 2029, with the earliest expiration date among the products in April 2027, according to the list detailing the nearly 5 million items. The US State Department spokesperson referred to the contraceptives to be destroyed as 'certain abortifacient birth control commodities from terminated Biden-era USAID contracts.' There is controversy about whether to describe certain contraceptives as abortifacient, or causing abortion, due to the debate over whether life begins at the moment an egg is fertilized or at a later stage. Some birth control methods, including IUDs, may work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. However, IUDs primarily work by suppressing the release of eggs, or by preventing sperm from reaching an egg. CNN has approached the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for comment. 'Only a limited number of commodities have been approved for disposal. No HIV medications or condoms are being destroyed,' the spokesperson added. 'USAID avoided an additional $34.1 million in taxpayer costs by negotiating no-cost cancellations of pending orders placed under the Biden Administration.' Responding to media reports that the contraceptives were set to be transferred to a French medical waste facility to be destroyed by the end of July, a diplomatic source in France told CNN that the contraceptives were being handled by private entities and they had 'no information concerning any transfers,' as of Thursday last week. 'We firmly support the Belgian authorities' commitment to find a solution in order to prevent the destruction of these contraceptives, so that they may reach women and men around the world who need them and are waiting for them,' the diplomatic source added. 'Access to quality sexual and reproductive health services and products is both a human rights and a public health issue.' US Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent a staff member to the warehouse in Belgium as part of her effort to introduce legislation prohibiting 'the destruction of any such commodities unless all efforts to sell or donate them have been exhausted.' The staffer also found that the earliest expiration date for the contraceptives was 2027, with some of the supplies not expiring until 2031, meaning they could still be used for years to come. 'At a moment when the Trump administration has made devastating cuts to foreign assistance it is disappointing that the State Department would sign off on spending money to actually destroy paid-for commodities that would save lives and are waiting to be deployed,' Shaheen said in a statement. 'Food and family planning commodities are desperately needed in conflict affected countries, like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo where famine is taking hold.' Belgian foreign ministry spokeswoman Florinda Baleci told CNN the country was 'exploring all possible avenues to prevent the destruction of these stocks, including their temporary relocation.' An organization called MSI Reproductive Choices said it and other funding partners had offered to pay for the shipping and repackaging of the USAID-branded supplies, but that the US government turned down the offer. 'We were not given a reason for why this offer was not accepted, but it became clear in conversations that it wouldn't be and that our efforts would be better spent finding alternative solutions to the contraception supplies gap,' said Grace Dunne, a spokeswoman for MSI, which works in 36 countries to provide reproductive healthcare, including abortion services, contraception and maternity care. In response to questions about the offer from CNN, the State Department highlighted the so-called 'Mexico City policy,' which 'prohibits providing certain assistance – directly or indirectly – to foreign nongovernmental organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning.' That policy, which opponents call the 'global gag rule,' prevents non-governmental organizations that provide abortions, give counseling about abortions or advocate for safe access to abortion from receiving US funding. The planned destruction of the contraceptives has sparked an outcry from other organizations, like Doctors Without Border (MSF), which raised concerns about contraceptive shortages in nations that were once reliant on supplies donated by USAID. 'In the communities served by MSF – whether impacted by conflict, disease outbreaks, natural and human-made disasters, or exclusion from health care – access to contraceptives is already constrained,' the organization said in a statement. 'Contexts that previously relied upon USAID funded contraceptive supplies are at a heightened risk of supply chain disruptions and stockouts.' 'MSF has seen firsthand the positive health benefits when women and girls can freely make their own health decisions by choosing to prevent or delay pregnancy – and the dangerous consequences when they cannot,' the chief executive of MSF USA, Avril Benoît, added. MSF also cited reports saying that more USAID-branded contraceptives are being housed in a warehouse in the United Arab Emirates, but the organization said the US government's plan for those supplies is unknown. A State Department spokesperson did not address a question about contraceptives warehoused in the UAE. CNN has reached out to the UAE government for comment. At the beginning of July, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed the end of USAID, saying that future foreign assistance programs would align with administration policies and be administered by the State Department. The rapid dismantling of USAID, led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has seen thousands of foreign assistance programs slashed, including many that focused on lifesaving work. A study published earlier this month by a leading medical journal, The Lancet, estimated that the USAID funding cuts could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030. USAID funding was most likely to reduce mortality related to HIV/AIDS, followed by malaria, according to the study.
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why it matters that top Republicans are deferring to Trump on a possible Maxwell pardon
Plenty of Republicans are walking a tricky line right now on the Jeffrey Epstein files. But few have walked one as tricky as congressional leadership in recent days. Asked about President Donald Trump potentially pardoning Epstein's convicted sex-trafficking accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell – something Trump conspicuously left the door open to Friday and then again Monday – House Speaker Mike Johnson punted on Sunday. 'Well, I mean, obviously that's a decision of the president,' he told NBC's 'Meet the Press,' adding: 'I won't get in front of him. That's not my lane.' When pressed, the Louisiana Republican relented a bit and said that the idea gave him 'great pause' because of her 'unspeakable crimes' – while again emphasizing that's 'not my decision.' Similarly on Monday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune would not say if Trump should rule out a pardon for Maxwell. 'Well, that's up to him,' the South Dakota Republican told CNN's Manu Raju. 'But it looks to me like she's going to spend a good long time in jail.' Maxwell, who's serving 20 years, is a convicted sex trafficker. Of children. Leadership's message to Trump seemed to be: Please don't do it. But also, just in case you do pardon a sex trafficker of children, I need to cover myself and emphasize that you have the full right to do it. And they weren't the only Republicans to curiously avoid rejecting such a pardon. 'I don't know enough about Maxwell or the conversation to even weigh in on that,' Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday. So why on earth are Republicans treating this seemingly unthinkable maneuver so gently? Would Trump actually do such a thing? And how on earth would that not blow up in his face? It's difficult to see how. And indeed, this prospect seems to work better as a carrot for Maxwell, who met last week with the deputy attorney general, than as a legitimate possibility. You could certainly be forgiven for thinking Trump wants Maxwell to believe she might get a pardon – or other help in her ongoing appeals – even if that's not realistic. The conventional wisdom among some on the left has been that Trump has indeed cued up a Maxwell pardon, ever since his administration made interviewing her its first big move to allay concerns about its handling of the Epstein files. The idea would be that Maxwell will say the things the Trump administration wants – such as clearing the president and/or implicating others – and he rewards her with a pardon. Trump certainly hasn't shied away from controversial pardons before. He has gone to historic lengths to pardon allies. He has granted clemency to virtually all January 6, 2021, defendants – including hundreds who were convicted of assaulting police. But even against that backdrop, pardoning a convicted sex trafficker is on another level. Let's say Trump does it. The idea would apparently be that Maxwell provides Trump and his team enough information that they can change the subject by focusing the conversation on other people she might implicate. (It's worth noting that Trump has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.) But what happens then? Maxwell clearly has a credibility issues and reason to say what helps her in this moment. And that's not just me saying it; it's Trump's own Justice Department, circa 2020, which called her a brazen liar. A pardon would only reinforce the idea that this was some kind of corrupt bargain. About the only way to combat that would be if she gave information that actually panned out. But justice takes a long time to be served. The Justice Department needs time to build cases, and those cases might or might not succeed. Are you really going to pardon her before any of that happens? What happens if the end result is that the only Epstein associate to actually be convicted walks free? It also seems likely that a pardon would only add new fuel to a subject that Trump badly wants to move on from. If other people were implicated, that would create all kinds of threads to be pulled moving forward. That would also inject new life into theories about a possible cover-up. The question would become whether these people were subjects in the various investigations, and whether those leads were followed up. It would also lead to questions about whether other people could be brought to justice, which would make withholding the Epstein files even more difficult for the Trump administration. And that's a very big risk here. Polls show huge numbers of Americans already believe there is some form of a cover-up at play. A Reuters-Ipsos poll this month showed Americans agreed 60-12% that the federal government was 'hiding information' about Epstein's death, and 69-6% that it was hiding information about his clients. That latter belief was overwhelmingly bipartisan, with 82% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans agreeing. These people would have their fears confirmed – and probably would want to know more. And then there is just the 'yuck' factor. Trump's January 6 pardons were highly unpopular; a February Washington Post-Ipsos poll showed Americans opposed the pardons of violent offenders 83-14%. At the same time, the president doesn't seem to have paid much of a price. Those pardons during his first week back in office quickly faded amid a barrage of early Trump maneuvers that competed for the attention of the media and news consumers. But the attack on the US Capitol was also years in the past by that point. People were probably unfamiliar with the many hundreds of defendants, and many Trump supporters had been convinced over many months that these people were railroaded. It just wasn't as much of a political hot potato, even as it was unseemly in most Americans' eyes. It's difficult to see how a Maxwell pardon wouldn't instantly be news for days and weeks, because of how people feel about her crimes and the entire Epstein saga, and because of questions about whether this was some kind of corrupt trade. It would also force GOP lawmakers into some very uncomfortable interviews. (A president indeed has the power to pardon whomever he wants to. That doesn't mean every pardon is morally just.) For all of the MAGA movement's seeming willingness to go along with whatever Trump says, it's hard to see how even much of the base would be okay with all that. The question of whether Trump pardons Maxwell might not even be the right one. A better one might be whether Trump's Justice Department could do something else to help her – such as in her ongoing appeals. Maxwell's legal team has based its appeal around the idea that the 2008 non-prosecution agreement Epstein secured in Florida should have covered Maxwell. To this point, the Trump administration has rejected that argument, saying earlier this month that Maxwell was 'not a party to the relevant agreement.' Perhaps it could change its tune? Even that seems pretty far-fetched, though. While this would be a more limited step, it would still look pretty bad and would lead to all kinds of questions about quid pro quos with a convicted sex trafficker. In the end, this debate seems a whole lot more valuable to Trump in the abstract than in reality. Maxwell didn't just talk to a top Trump appointee in the Justice Department last week, she could soon be testifying to Congress. What better way to guide what she says than to have her believe maybe the administration could do her a solid. Or perhaps this is just another example of Trump's strange commentary about Maxwell – remember 'I wish her well' – and never wanting to rule things out. He loves to keep his options open, even when one of those options seems to be ridiculous. But at least for now, it's apparently significant enough for Republicans to treat it as a real possibility. And that, in and of itself, is shocking.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
‘Worst-case scenario of famine' is unfolding in Gaza, UN-backed food security initiative says
The Middle East The UN Israel-Hamas warFacebookTweetLink Follow The 'worst-case scenario of famine' is currently taking place in the Gaza Strip, according to an alert issued by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), a United Nations-backed initiative. 'Conflict and displacement have intensified, and access to food and other essential items and services has plummeted to unprecedented levels,' the IPC said, adding that 'mounting evidence shows that widespread starvation, malnutrition, and disease are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths.' The IPC said that the alert is intended to 'draw urgent attention to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation' but doesn't constitute a formal classification of famine. 'Given the most recent information and data made available, a new IPC analysis is to be conducted without delay,' it added. More than 20,000 children were admitted for treatment for acute malnutrition between April and mid-July, the IPC said, with more than 3,000 severely malnourished. 'Latest data indicates that famine thresholds have been reached for food consumption in most of the Gaza Strip and for acute malnutrition in Gaza City,' the alert said, calling for 'immediate action' to end the hostilities and allow for 'unimpeded, large-scale, life-saving humanitarian response.' In May, the IPC reported that the enclave's entire population is experiencing 'high levels of acute food security' and the territory is at 'high risk' of famine, the most severe type of hunger crisis. Israel has come under mounting pressure by the international community to break its blockade, allow aid into Gaza and end the war. In some of his strongest remarks on the crisis, US President Donald Trump on Monday said there is 'real starvation' in Gaza, contradicting earlier statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who insists there is no starvation. President Donald Trump contradicted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assessment on starvation in Gaza and announced a plan for new "food centers" in the enclave. CNN's Nic Robertson reports from Jerusalem. 'That's real starvation stuff,' Trump told reporters in Turnberry, Scotland. 'I see it, and you can't fake that. So, we're going to be even more involved.' Trump added that the United States will set up 'food centers' in Gaza to address the crisis. Vice President JD Vance also lamented images coming out of the besieged territory. 'I don't know if you've all seen these images. You have got some really, really heartbreaking cases. You've got little kids who are clearly starving to death,' Vance told reporters Monday during a visit to Canton, Ohio. 'Israel's got to do more to let that aid in,' he said, adding that 'we've also got to wage war on Hamas so that those folks stop preventing food from coming into this territory.' Over the weekend, Israel announced a daily 'tactical pause in military activity' in three areas of Gaza to enable more aid to reach people. The military said the move would 'refute the false claim of deliberate starvation in the Gaza Strip.' Israel has also allowed foreign countries to airdrop aid into the territory, but the practice has in the past been deemed by the UN and other aid groups as costly, dangerous and insufficient. Meanwhile, the health ministry in Gaza said on Tuesday that more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in the territory since Israel's war on Hamas began nearly two years ago. The ministry reported that 113 people were killed in the past 24 hours, bringing the death toll to 60,034. The announcement comes as hopes dim for a ceasefire anytime soon, after talks broke up last week without an agreement. The war began after Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack on Israel killed around 1,200 people and saw another roughly 250 people taken hostage. Authorities in Gaza do not distinguish between civilians and Hamas fighters when reporting casualty figures, but the health ministry and the UN say the majority of deaths are women and children. And the true toll could be much higher, with many thousands still believed to be buried under rubble. Israel does not dispute that a significant number of Palestinian civilians have been killed in its war in Gaza. But it has long argued that figures from the Hamas-controlled health ministry are exaggerated, and that Hamas embeds itself between civilians, using them as 'human shields.' On Monday, a pair of leading Israeli human rights groups accused Israel of 'committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza,' becoming the first such organizations to make the claim. B'Tselem said it came to that 'unequivocal conclusion' after an 'examination of Israel's policy in the Gaza Strip and its horrific outcomes, together with statements by senior Israeli politicians and military commanders about the goals of the attack.' A second Israeli group, Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI), announced it was joining B'Tselem in calling Israel's actions in Gaza genocide. It published a separate legal and medical analysis documenting what it called 'deliberate and systematic extermination of the health system in Gaza.' Israeli government spokesman David Mencer dismissed the report. 'We have free speech in this country but we strongly reject this claim,' he told reporters, adding that Israel has allowed aid into Gaza. CNN's Eyad Kourdi, DJ Judd and Ivana Kottasová contributed reporting.
