
Some countries still want to save the world
If the world has had enough of helping others, then somebody forgot to tell Spain.
Yes, Spain. The same country that, a little more than a decade ago, desperately accepted billions in bailout money from its European neighbors to keep its economy afloat. That Spain is now doing something almost unthinkable. It's ramping up aid spending just as the United States notoriously retreats. And in the process, Spain is trying to remind the world why we give back in the first place.
The crisis is steep. The pot of money going to global development is set to shrink by 17 percent, or $35 billion, in 2025, on top of a $21 billion drop the year before, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. That's a $56 billion funding vacuum where global aid for mosquito nets, vaccine research, and food assistance used to be. And the declines are likely to become even steeper in the years ahead, as cuts in the US take full effect.
Future Perfect
Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
It's far from enough to fill the foreign aid gap, however. And while the pain will fall primarily on impoverished recipient countries, foreign aid doesn't just help the countries that receive it. It helps everyone.
Diseases and conflict don't recognize legal borders and aid helps keep these deadly problems at bay. Every $100 million spent on preventing tuberculosis, HIV, and malaria helps prevent about 2.2 million new infections total. And global cuts are already expected to exacerbate the spread of diseases; former USAID officials anticipate cuts from the US alone could cause 28,000 new cases of infectious diseases like Ebola and Marburg each year. 'Even if you're in this isolationist mindset, you can't actually isolate yourself from the rest of the world,' said Rachael Calleja, a research fellow at the Center for Global Development.
The fact that some countries have managed to fight the impulse to isolate — convincing their citizens that problems abroad are interconnected with our problems at home — could help reshape the future of aid for the better. Their decisions point to the possibility of a new future for foreign aid that could be more collaborative and less paternalistic than before.
Ready or not, the old club's grip on global influence is now breaking down.
'Nobody who works in development sat around saying, 'The system is great. We're awesome. Let's just spend more money to do more of the same,'' said Dean Karlan, who was, until recently, the chief economist at USAID. 'There is a blank slate. Let's put in place a better system.'
Why are some countries bucking the trend?
Spain, Ireland, Italy, and South Korea are all increasing aid — but most have a lot of room for growth.
The United Nations set a lofty goal in the 1970s for wealthy countries to give away 0.7 percent of their gross national income (GNI) as development assistance. Half a century later, almost none do.
That includes this year's overachievers. Ireland spent 0.57 percent of its GNI — $2.47 billion — on development aid last year. Spain spent 0.25 percent or $4.35 billion, and Italy, 0.28 percent or $6.67 billion. South Korea spent 0.21 percent or $3.94 billion.
It's not a lot, especially compared to the $63.3 billion the US spent in 2024, although that only added up to 0.22 percent of its GNI. But these countries are moving forward at a time when everyone else seems to be moving backward. According to the global development consultancy SEEK Development's donor tracker, the US is now projected to spend just 0.13 percent of its GNI on overseas aid this year.
There is a growing recognition that someone has to fill the gaps left by the US, but everybody balks at the price tag, Arturo Angulo Urarte, a Madrid-based development expert, said in Spanish. 'It's like, 'Yes, but gosh, and how much does that mean? Oh, it means money? Well, then no.''
Spain's aid increase, however, has been a long time coming. Spanish activists launched a kind of Occupy Wall Street in favor of overseas aid back in the 1990s. A group of global development workers and grassroots activists staged hunger strikes and protest encampments, chaining themselves to government buildings to demand that Spain give at least 0.7 percent of its GNI to aid. At the time, Spain was giving around 0.24 percent of its GNI to aid, but the protests helped propel the country to double its commitment to a high of nearly 0.5 percent in 2008.
Then the 2008 economic turmoil left Spain once again with a wisp of an foreign aid budget. By the time its economy crawled closer to pre-crisis levels in 2015, its development spending had cratered to 0.12 percent of GNI.
But the idea of Spain becoming a bigger player in global development never really left the public consciousness, remaining broadly popular even during the country's worst financial straits. In 2023 the country passed a law promising to rebuild its aid agency and bump up spending to 0.7 percent of GNI by 2030 — effectively tripling its current rate.
Spain has since increased its aid budget to about 0.25 percent of its GNI, or $4.4 billion last year — roughly $490 million more than it spent the year prior at 0.24 percent of its GNI — and says it will continue to give more in the year ahead. That's more money for climate resilience projects in Morocco and Algeria, LGBTQ rights in Paraguay, and HPV vaccine campaigns across Latin America and the Caribbean.
A mother living with HIV since 2017 visits Kuoyo Sub-county Hospital with her child to collect their medications, on April 24, 2025 in Kisumu, Kenya.The dismantling of USAID has destroyed longstanding and hard-won infrastructure for implementing aid programs, especially in critical areas like HIV prevention. There's little that anyone can do to bring that infrastructure back, but countries like Spain, Ireland, or South Korea have been able to uplift and increase funding to the initiatives most affected by the cuts, like Gavi, the international vaccine alliance, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
Ireland also aims to increase its aid spending to 0.7 percent of GNI by 2030. It inched closer to that goal this year by boosting its development budget by about $40 million to $925 million. 'We wouldn't expect Ireland to be able to fill the USAID gap in any shape or form,' Jane-Ann McKenna, who heads Dóchas, an umbrella group for Irish development organizations, said. 'But that's where our positioning and our voice becomes more important.'
That said, foreign aid has always been about more than just charity. It's a geopolitical tool that countries have used for decades to win friends and influence people.
It's no coincidence that, according to a 2006 study, US aid increased about 59 percent to nations when they temporarily joined the UN Security Council. The birth of PEPFAR — the HIV/AIDS program that saves around a million lives per year, which makes it perhaps America's most effective ever form of foreign aid — helped boost public opinion of the US across sub-Saharan Africa. Much of Italy's recent aid budget has gone to its $6 billion Mattei Plan in Africa, which aims to collaboratively influence the continent's energy development and migration flows, but which some critics contend recreates old colonial patterns by relying too heavily on European priorities — not local expertise — to decide where the money ought to go and how its vision should take shape.
But if you take countries like Ireland and Spain at their word, their approach to foreign aid is not just about soft power anymore. These countries also have something in common that can differentiate them from other larger donors: recent histories of underdevelopment. Some of the newcomers might have been aid recipients rather than donors just a few decades ago.
South Korea received billions in foreign aid in the decades after the Korean War, which helped it grow to the point where it became the first former recipient to join OECD's forum for major aid providers in 2010. Spain's wealthier neighbors offered the country major financial support when it began integrating with Europe in the 1980s in the aftermath of the Franco dictatorship.
That dynamic can make it easier, Calleja says, to empathize with others who need aid today. (Though let's not forget that Spain once colonized much of Latin America and the Caribbean — places that now receive the bulk of Spanish foreign aid — and therefore laid the groundwork for many patterns of exploitation and inequality there that its aid now seeks to resolve.)
Ireland was never a colonizer, but was once colonized itself by Britain. That legacy, McKenna said, means that many Irish people are passionate about human rights abroad and highly supportive of overseas aid.
'We have the history of the famine and we've had conflict on the island and we've had to engage in a whole peace process ourselves,' McKenna explained. 'That's there in the background of all of our psyches.'
As these smaller players like to say, it's about 'solidarity.' Spain's own development agency's four-year plan mentions the word solidarity 84 times. It explicitly calls for a move away from the old model, where wealthy nations dictated terms to grateful recipients, and toward a more equitable and collaborative model built on shared priorities and mutual respect.
Crisis as catalyst?
Of course, not everybody is buying it.
Henry Morales is an economist and director of the Movimiento Tzuk Kim-Pop, a Guatemalan human rights group. He let out a little laugh when I asked him about Spain's solidarity plan. After all, he's seen foreign funders renege on their promises before.
He's seen European powers pledge numerous times to do more to promote climate resilience in low-income countries before watching them give up when the politics become too difficult. Spain's plan for development stresses that it aims to approach its funding priorities — like combating climate change and promoting gender equality — from a place of consistency and genuine partnership, the kind that can't be abandoned on a whim when a new government takes power.
Whether Spain's plan represents a form of global reparations or just colonialism with better PR remains to be seen, he said, but regardless, the old top-down model is clearly cracking.
Countries who receive aid now want 'a voice and a vote, so that the decisions are no longer made by a private club of the big donors, the big traditional financiers,' he said. 'But by debates and global agreements that are much more transparent and much more democratic.'
Fifty countries in the Global South now have their own agencies to exchange ideas, technical advice, and reciprocal funds for solving poverty, fighting climate change, and improving education.
Ensuring that recipients have a big say in how aid gets around is not only good for building a better, more democratic system — it can also make it much more efficient. According to Vox's previous reporting in 2022, aid programs tend to work better when people from the countries they're targeting play a big role in directing how and where the money's used. Morales thinks that kind of collaboration is the real future of aid, which he prefers to see not as charity but as 'simply the fair distribution of wealth.'
He's not the only one who thinks so. The director-general of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, called foreign aid 'a thing of the past' at a meeting with African leaders in February.
For his part, Karlan, the former USAID economist, doesn't think USAID will ever come back as the acronym or institution it once was, and although that's mostly a very bad thing, he sees a flicker of opportunity.
Still, he isn't sure if he believes that a real change to the aid paradigm is afoot. 'Solidarity strikes me as a little bit of a softer way of saying soft power,' he mused, even if countries like Spain or Ireland aren't necessarily 'looking for flyover rights for the military.'
What he is sure of is that the US is moving in a very different direction. If Spain's soft power is softening, then the United States' is calcifying into something more toxic, more transactional, and — as Karlan likes to add — less efficient than before.
'Imagine a marriage in which you never did something considerate for your partner just because you cared about them,' he said. Instead, everything is a negotiation. 'That isn't a healthy relationship. What we're risking is losing these long-term relationships, those long-term friendships.'
By the time the US is ready to reopen the door on them, it may find a world that has already moved on.
Hashtags

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

Los Angeles Times
21 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
NATO to coordinate regular and large-scale arm deliveries to Ukraine. Most will be bought in the US
BRUSSELS — NATO has started coordinating regular deliveries of large weapons packages to Ukraine after the Netherlands said it would provide air defense equipment, ammunition and other military aid worth $578 million. Sweden also announced Tuesday it would contribute $275 million to a joint effort along with its Nordic neighbors Denmark and Norway to provide $500 million worth of air defenses, anti-tank weapons, ammunition and spare parts. Two deliveries of equipment, most of it bought in the United States, are expected this month, although the Nordic package is expected to arrive in September. The equipment is supplied based on Ukraine's priority needs on the battlefield. NATO allies then locate the weapons and ammunition and send them on. 'Packages will be prepared rapidly and issued on a regular basis,' NATO said Monday. Air defense systems are in greatest need. The United Nations has said that Russia's relentless pounding of urban areas behind the front line has killed more than 12,000 Ukrainian civilians. Russia's bigger army is also making slow but costly progress along the 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line. Currently, it is waging an operation to take the eastern city of Pokrovsk, a logistical hub whose fall could allow it to drive deeper into Ukraine. European allies and Canada are buying most of the equipment they plan to send from the United States, which has greater stocks of ready military materiel, as well as more effective weapons. The Trump administration is not giving any arms to Ukraine. The new deliveries will come on top of other pledges of military equipment. The Kiel Institute, which tracks support to Ukraine, estimates that as of June, European countries had provided 72 billion euros ($83 billion) worth of military aid since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022, compared to $65 billion in U.S. aid. Dutch Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans said that 'American air defense systems and munitions, in particular, are crucial for Ukraine to defend itself.' Announcing the deliveries Monday, he said Russia's attacks are 'pure terror, intended to break Ukraine.' President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed his gratitude to the Netherlands, posting on social media that 'Ukraine, and thus the whole of Europe, will be better protected from Russian terror.' He said the deliveries are coming 'at a time when Russia is trying to scale up its strikes. This will definitely help protect the lives of our people!' Germany said Friday it will deliver two more Patriot air defense systems to Ukraine in the coming days. It agreed to the move after securing assurances that the U.S. will prioritize the delivery of new Patriots to Germany to backfill its stocks. These weapon systems are only made in the U.S. As an organization, NATO provides only non-lethal assistance to Ukraine like uniforms, tents, medical supplies and logistics support. The 32-nation military alliance has mostly sought to protect NATO territory from possible Russian attack and avoid being dragged into a war against a nuclear power. But its support role has expanded since President Trump took office in January, even as his administration insists European allies must now take care of their own security and that of their war-ravaged neighbor. Trump has made no public promise of weapons or economic support for Ukraine. Trump said on July 28 that the U.S. is 'going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they'll be doing what they want, but I guess it's for the most part working with Ukraine.' Cook writes for the Associated Press. Mike Corder in The Hague, Netherlands, and Kirsten Grieshaber and David Keyton in Berlin contributed to this report.


TechCrunch
21 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
The EU AI Act aims to create a level playing field for AI innovation. Here's what it is.
The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act, known as the EU AI Act, has been described by the European Commission as 'the world's first comprehensive AI law.' After years in the making, it is progressively becoming a part of reality for the 450 million people living in the 27 countries that comprise the EU. The EU AI Act, however, is more than a European affair. It applies to companies both local and foreign, and it can affect both providers and deployers of AI systems; the European Commission cites examples of how it would apply to a developer of a CV screening tool, and to a bank that buys that tool. Now, all of these parties have a legal framework that sets the stage for their use of AI. Why does the EU AI Act exist? As usual with EU legislation, the EU AI Act exists to make sure there is a uniform legal framework applying to a certain topic across EU countries — the topic this time being AI. Now that the regulation is in place, it should 'ensure the free movement, cross-border, of AI-based goods and services' without diverging local restrictions. With timely regulation, the EU seeks to create a level playing field across the region and foster trust, which could also create opportunities for emerging companies. However, the common framework that it has adopted is not exactly permissive: Despite the relatively early stage of widespread AI adoption in most sectors, the EU AI Act sets a high bar for what AI should and shouldn't do for society more broadly. What is the purpose of the EU AI Act? According to European lawmakers, the framework's main goal is to 'promote the uptake of human centric and trustworthy AI while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety, fundamental rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, including democracy, the rule of law and environmental protection, to protect against the harmful effects of AI systems in the Union, and to support innovation.' Yes, that's quite a mouthful, but it's worth parsing carefully. First, because a lot will depend on how you define 'human centric' and 'trustworthy' AI. And second, because it gives a good sense of the precarious balance to maintain between diverging goals: innovation vs. harm prevention, as well as uptake of AI vs. environmental protection. As usual with EU legislation, again, the devil will be in the details. How does the EU AI Act balance its different goals? To balance harm prevention against the potential benefits of AI, the EU AI Act adopted a risk-based approach: banning a handful of 'unacceptable risk' use cases; flagging a set of 'high-risk' uses calling for tight regulation; and applying lighter obligations to 'limited risk' scenarios. Techcrunch event Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise on August 7. Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise. San Francisco | REGISTER NOW Has the EU AI Act come into effect? Yes and no. The EU AI Act rollout started on August 1, 2024, but it will only come into force through a series of staggered compliance deadlines. In most cases, it will also apply sooner to new entrants than to companies that already offer AI products and services in the EU. The first deadline came into effect on February 2, 2025, and focused on enforcing bans on a small number of prohibited uses of AI, such as untargeted scraping of internet or CCTV for facial images to build up or expand databases. Many others will follow, but unless the schedule changes, most provisions will apply by mid-2026. What changed on August 2, 2025? Since August 2, 2025, the EU AI Act applies to 'general-purpose AI models with systemic risk.' GPAI models are AI models trained with a large amount of data, and that can be used for a wide range of tasks. That's where the risk element comes in. According to the EU AI Act, GPAI models can come with systemic risks; 'for example, through the lowering of barriers for chemical or biological weapons development, or unintended issues of control over autonomous [GPAI] models.' Ahead of the deadline, the EU published guidelines for providers of GPAI models, which include both European companies and non-European players such as Anthropic, Google, Meta, and OpenAI. But since these companies already have models on the market, they will also have until August 2, 2027, to comply, unlike new entrants. Does the EU AI Act have teeth? The EU AI Act comes with penalties that lawmakers wanted to be simultaneously 'effective, proportionate and dissuasive' — even for large global players. Details will be laid down by EU countries, but the regulation sets out the overall spirit — that penalties will vary depending on the deemed risk level — as well as thresholds for each level. Infringement on prohibited AI applications leads to the highest penalty of 'up to €35 million or 7% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year (whichever is higher).' The European Commission can also inflict fines of up to €15 million or 3% of annual turnover on providers of GPAI models. How fast do existing players intend to comply? The voluntary GPAI code of practice, including commitments such as not training models on pirated content, is a good indicator of how companies may engage with the framework law until forced to do so. In July 2025, Meta announced it wouldn't sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice meant to help such providers comply with the EU AI Act. However, Google soon after confirmed it would sign, despite reservations. Signatories so far include Aleph Alpha, Amazon, Anthropic, Cohere, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Mistral AI, and OpenAI, among others. But as we have seen with Google's example, signing does not equal a full-on endorsement. Why have (some) tech companies been fighting these rules? While stating in a blog post that Google would sign the voluntary GPAI code of practice, its president of global affairs, Kent Walker, still had reservations. 'We remain concerned that the AI Act and Code risk slowing Europe's development and deployment of AI,' he wrote. Meta was more radical, with its chief global affairs officer Joel Kaplan stating in a post on LinkedIn that 'Europe is heading down the wrong path on AI.' Calling the EU's implementation of the AI Act 'overreach,' he stated that the code of practice 'introduces a number of legal uncertainties for model developers, as well as measures which go far beyond the scope of the AI Act.' European companies have expressed concerns as well. Arthur Mensch, the CEO of French AI champion Mistral AI, was part of a group of European CEOs who signed an open letter in July 2025 urging Brussels to 'stop the clock' for two years before key obligations of the EU AI Act came into force. Will the schedule change? In early July 2025, the European Union responded negatively to lobbying efforts calling for a pause, saying it would still stick to its timeline for implementing the EU AI Act. It went ahead with the August 2, 2025, deadline as planned, and we will update this story if anything changes.


NBC News
22 minutes ago
- NBC News
How Trump is reshaping government data
Meteorological data collected by some weather balloons has been halted. Statistics for HIV among transgender people were scrubbed from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's website. And basic public figures, like how many people work for the federal government, have been frozen or delayed for months. Across the federal government, President Donald Trump has been wielding his influence over data used by researchers, economists and scientists, an effort that was playing out largely behind the scenes until Friday, when he fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agency collects and publishes economic data, and Trump accused its former chief, Erika McEntarfer, of giving fake employment data last week showing a recent slowdown in the labor market. "The numbers were rigged. Biden wasn't doing well, he was doing poorly," Trump said in an interview on CNBC Tuesday, referring to the jobs numbers. Presidents of both political parties often seek to spin government data to their benefit, cherry-picking numbers that put their agendas in the best light possible. But McEntarfer's firing has drawn criticism from economists, Wall Street investors and even Republicans who are raising wider concerns about the continued reliability of government data once seen as the gold standard. 'We have to look somewhere for objective statistics. When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that, you know, the statistics won't be politicized,' Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in an interview. 'You can't really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting.' William Beach, whom Trump nominated for BLS commissioner in the last half of his first term, said in an interview with NBC News that the commissioner has no control over the results of the jobs report, which is compiled by a group of economists and statisticians. The commissioner doesn't see the data until it is locked into the system several days before its release, Beach said. "It's not currently possible for the commissioner to rig the data," he said. Trump has a history of seeking to distort hard numbers. In 2019, during his first term, he showed off a doctored hurricane model that included a Sharpie-like black swipe that made Alabama seem to be in Hurricane Dorian's path — when it wasn't. As the Covid-19 pandemic raged, Trump bemoaned how testing made the United States look as though it had more cases than other countries. 'Think of this: If we didn't do testing, instead of testing over 40 million people, if we did half the testing, we would have half the cases,' he said at a news conference at the White House. 'If we did another, you cut that in half; we would have, yet again, half of that. But the headlines are always 'testing.'' And the final days of his first term in office were spent refusing to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, claiming falsely that there had been widespread voter fraud in his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. In his second term, the administration's efforts to target or control government data appear to be growing. After buyouts and staffing cuts, the National Weather Service stopped some of its weather balloon releases beginning in February, a measure that independent meteorologists say has left data gaps that have degraded forecasts. This spring, the National Centers for Environmental Information announced it would no longer track billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, something it had done since 1980. The administration also shuttered the National Climate Assessment's website in July after it told hundreds of volunteer scientists who were working on its 2027 report that it no longer needed them and ended funding for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which had coordinated work on the federal report. The White House denied any effort to control data. 'President Trump is leading the most transparent administration in history,' said White House spokesman Kush Desai. 'Not only has the administration continued to share the data that's critical for policymakers, businesses, researchers, and everyday Americans, but we have taken historic steps to improve the reliability and accuracy of that data by re-examining how it's collected and distributed.' The White House said the NWS never lost confidence in weather model accuracy, and that the agency is looking at ways to improve the efficiency of weather balloon data collection and new satellite technology to improve forecasting models. The NWS continues to launch weather balloons daily, it said. In the CNBC interview Tuesday, Trump contradicted some data put out by his own government. He said that prices were falling — despite numbers released by the BLS last week showing inflation picking up in June. He said a gallon of gas was down to $2.20; the average price for a gallon of gas is $3.14, slightly up since when Trump entered office though lower than it was at this time a year ago, according to Energy Department data. Trump provided no evidence Friday that any data had been rigged when he fired McEntarfer hours after a government report showed that hiring had slowed significantly, making a revision to the number of jobs added over the previous two months. It isn't uncommon for the agency to revise numbers downward, but the revision last week was the largest since the start of the pandemic. At the same time, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has cut back on some data collection because of staffing issues. The agency has twice reduced the sample collection areas across the country for the monthly inflation report, suspending data collection entirely in Lincoln, Nebraska, and Provo, Utah. In July, it suspended data collection by roughly 15% across the 72 other areas. The reasoning was to 'align survey workload with resource levels.' The White House attributed these changes to the recently fired commissioner and said the Department of Labor only learned of these changes in the press. The Department of Labor, which oversees BLS, has been working to address staffing and other issues affecting data collection, it said. Economic officials in past administrations of both political parties have said improvements in government collection of data are needed because of budget cuts and falling response rates to government surveys. But they said there are no indications the BLS commissioner could be involved in changing the numbers for political purposes. Stephen Moore, a former Trump campaign adviser on economic issues, agreed with Trump's decision to replace McEntarfer and said he hopes a new leader could improve the accuracy of employment data. 'There's no doubt that since Covid, the job numbers have become more and more imprecise,' he said, citing a drop-off in survey response rates by the public and employers. But he doubted whether the poor job numbers were politically motivated — something Trump and his top economic adviser have alleged. 'It might be true, but there's no real evidence of that,' Moore said. The deputy commissioner of BLS, Bill Wiatrowski, who took up the role during the Obama administration, will become the acting chief while Trump looks for a replacement, who will have to be confirmed by the Senate. Other types of federal data haven't been updated for months. Immigration and Customs Enforcement used to provide a data dashboard of arrests, detentions and deportations, but it hasn't updated it since December. The White House said the Department of Homeland Security has been regularly putting out information on immigration enforcement actions by press release, in media appearances by top officials and on social media. A dataset that tracks how many people work for the federal government, broken down by gender, age and average salary, had been updated quarterly for decades until January, when it froze for months, making it difficult to understand how many people work in the federal government and what the impact of cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency have been. The first-quarter data was eventually published last month, four months late. Across public health agencies, the administration has been removing data, limiting data collection and sometimes issuing guidance that contradicts their own data — affecting not just government decision-making but also the ability for outside medical researchers, public health departments and doctors to give the best advice to patients and the public. 'The consequences from a health perspective to the loss of data will be severe,' said Richard Besser, former acting director of the CDC and current president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a nonprofit health foundation. 'If you can't trust the CDC's website, where can people go for that critical health information? That's the key question, and unfortunately, I don't have a good answer. And that worries me greatly.' The CDC scrubbed a swath of HIV-related content from its website in January to comply with Trump's executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion, while continuing to put out total HIV statistics. It also temporarily withheld two weekly reports on bird flu that had been scheduled to be published Jan. 23 though the data was eventually released. In April, Reuters reported that, because of staffing cuts, the Consumer Product Safety Commission would stop collecting data via the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System about injuries from motor vehicle crashes, falls, alcohol, adverse drug effects, aircraft incidents and work-related incidents. Trump's embrace of government data can depend on which way it's trending. Several months ago, he was quick to herald the labor statistics when they were more favorable. 'GREAT JOB NUMBERS, FAR BETTER THAN EXPECTED. IT'S ALREADY WORKING. HANG TOUGH, WE CAN'T LOSE!!!' he wrote on social media when the number of jobs added in March exceeded expectations.