Enough food to feed 3,500,000 people for a month left to rot due to Trump cuts
Food that could feed 3.5 million people for a month has reportedly been left to rot in warehouses across the world because of US aid cuts.
Around 60,000 metric tons of supplies meant for hunger stricken regions such as Gaza and Sudan are stuck in warehouses in Houston, Djibouti, Durban and Dubai, according to aid agency sources.
It comes after US president Donald Trump cut funding to the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in January.
Some stocks are due to expire as early as July and will likely to be destroyed or used as animal feed, the sources told Reuters.
The warehouses are run by USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance (BHA), while the food is sourced from US farmers and manufacturers they said.
The supplies are worth more than $98 million, according to a document reviewed by Reuters, which was shared by an aid official and verified by a US government source as up to date.
That food could sustain over a million people for three months or feed Gaza's entire population for six weeks, according to World Food Programme data
Around 343 million people are facing acute levels of food insecurity around the globe, says the World Food Programme.
Of those, 1.9 million people are experiencing catastrophic hunger. Most of them are in Gaza and Sudan, but areas of South Sudan, Haiti and Mali are also affected.
The US government has issued waivers for some humanitarian programmes but the food is stuck at the warehouses due to the cancellation of contracts and freezing of funds needed to pay suppliers, shippers and contractors, according to the sources, which include former USAID employees.
They said a proposal to hand the stocks to aid organisations able to distribute them is on hold and awaiting approval from the State Department's Office of Foreign Assistance.
Almost all of USAID staff will lose their jobs in July and September, according to a notification submitted to Congress in March.
The former USAID sources said many of the critical staff needed to manage the warehouses or move the supplies will leave in July.
The United States is responsible for at least 38% of all aid contributions across the world, according to the United Nations and distributed$61 billion in foreign assistance last year.
Just over half of this was through USAID.
US food aid includes ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) such as high-energy biscuits and Plumpy'Nut, a peanut-based paste.
Navyn Salem, the founder of Edesia, a US based manufacturer of the paste, said USAID's termination of transportation contracts had created a 5,000 tonne stockpile that could feed more than 484,000 children.
She said she was hopeful, however, that the product could still be distributed to those who desperately needed it. More Trending
Action Against Hunger, a charity that relied on the US for more than 30% of its global budget, said last month the cuts had already led to the deaths of at least six children at its programmes in the Congo, due to projects having to be suspended.
Jeanette Bailey, director of nutrition at the International Rescue Committee, which receives much of its funding from the US, said it was scaling back its programmes following the cuts.
She said the impact of Trump's cuts was difficult to measure, particularly in places where aid programmes no longer operate.
'What we do know, though, is that if a child's in an inpatient stabilization centre and they're no longer able to access treatment, more than 60% of those children are at risk of dying very quickly,' she added.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Map shows severe storms in US after 21 killed across three states
MORE: 'Uber has innovated so hard… they invented a bus'
MORE: 'Armed and dangerous' prisoners escape through hole behind toilet while guard was on break
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
21 minutes ago
- Telegraph
White House tries to water down Russia sanctions
Donald Trump is pressuring a US senator to weaken a Bill that would impose sweeping sanctions on Russia. White House officials hoping to mend relations with Moscow have been quietly contacting senator Lindsey Graham's office urging him to water down his Bill, which aims to cripple Vladimir Putin with huge sanctions. The Bill, backed by nearly the entire Senate, would impose 500 per cent tariffs on countries that continue to buy Russian oil and gas, which bankrolls Putin's war effort. Officials have been demanding the Bill include waivers that would allow Mr Trump to choose who or what was sanctioned, congressional aides told the Wall Street Journal. Other attempts to weaken the legislation include softening the language, replacing 'shall' with 'may' to avoid making the reprimands mandatory. Removing the mandatory nature of the sanctions would render the Bill effectively toothless and do little to hamper Putin's war machine, aides fear. 'We're moving ahead and the White House is included in our conversations,' Richard Blumenthal, senator and lead Democratic co-sponsor of the Bill, told the paper. Russia's war effort is funded by fossil-fuel exports. Moscow has adapted to existing sanctions with relative ease, turning to North Korea and China for support. Fearing the impact on pump prices, Joe Biden, former president, was unwilling to crack down on Russian energy exports. Mr Trump, has threatened to impose sanctions on Ukraine, as well as Russia, if the two sides fail to reach a peace agreement. 'Any sanction package must provide complete flexibility for the president to continue to pursue his desired foreign policy,' a White House official said. They added that the constitution 'vests the president with the authority to conduct diplomacy with foreign nations'. Speaking in the Oval Office alongside Friedrich Merz, German chancellor, on Thursday, the US president said that the Bill should not move forward without his express approval. 'They'll be guided by me. That's how it's supposed to be,' he told reporters. 'They're waiting for me to decide on what to do.' Last week, Mr Graham and Mr Blumenthal visited Ukraine where they applauded the country's drone attack that destroyed 40 aircraft deep inside Russian territory. However, they were ridiculed and accused of 'stirring up' the conflict by key allies of Mr Trump, including Steve Bannon. 'By trying to engage Putin – by being friendly and enticing – it's become painfully clear [Putin's] not interested in ending this war,' Mr Graham said earlier this week. '[Putin] needs to see and hear that message as well from us, from the American people,' said Mr Blumenthal. Both said that failing to act now could pull the US deeper into the conflict later. If Putin isn't stopped in Ukraine, Mr Blumenthal said, Nato treaty obligations could compel US troops into battle. Earlier this week, Russian negotiators tabled a long memorandum, resembling a complete capitulation for Ukraine, in a second round of direct talks with Kyiv in Istanbul. They demanded Ukraine must withdraw its troops from four eastern regions that Russia only partially occupies and that international recognition of Russian sovereignty over them and Crimea must be granted.
Reuters
23 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court keeps DOGE records blocked in watchdog group's challenge
June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court extended on Friday its block on judicial orders requiring the Department of Government Efficiency to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by President Donald Trump and previously spearheaded by his billionaire former adviser Elon Musk. The court put on hold Washington-based U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper's orders for DOGE to respond to requests by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington for information about its operations. The judge concluded that DOGE likely is a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The brief, unsigned order said that portions of one of the judge's decisions "are not appropriately tailored" and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." The court sent the case back to a lower appeals court to narrow the judge's directives. The court's three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented from Friday's decision. In a separate case, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted DOGE broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. DOGE has played a central role in Trump's efforts to downsize and reshape the U.S. government including by slashing the federal workforce and dismantling certain agencies. The watchdog group, called CREW, said its intention was to shed light on what it called DOGE's secretive structure and operations. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and his once-close relationship with Trump has since unraveled publicly, a split that followed Musk's recent attacks on the president's sweeping tax and spending bill and played out dramatically on social media on Thursday. CREW sued to obtain an array of records from DOGE through the FOIA statute, a law that allows the public to seek access to records produced by government agencies. It sought information on DOGE's activities over its role in the mass firings and cuts to federal programs pursued since the Republican president returned to office in January. The Trump administration contends that DOGE is an advisory entity and not subject to FOIA. In response, CREW sought information to determine whether DOGE is subject to FOIA because it wields the kind of authority of an agency independent of the president. Cooper ruled in April that DOGE must turn over some records sought by CREW and that the group was entitled to question DOGE official Amy Gleason at a deposition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. The administration urged the Supreme Court to act, saying that the judge's orders intruded on the powers of the executive branch and compromised the ability of a wide array of advisers to provide candid and confidential advice to the president. CREW told the justices that siding with the administration in the dispute would give the president "free reign" to create new entities that would "functionally wield substantial independent authority but are exempt from critical transparency laws." In one of his decisions, Cooper said DOGE's operations have been marked by "unusual secrecy." In another, the judge said that the language of Trump's executive orders concerning DOGE suggests that it is "exercising substantial independent authority."
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court rules Doge can access personal records during legal challenge
The US supreme court on Friday permitted the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge), a key player in Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to the personal information of millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. At the request of the justice department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based US district judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked Doge's access to 'personally identifiable information' in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing Doge unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with Doge. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented. Doge swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on 30 May. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop Doge from accessing sensitive data at the SSA, including social security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients, including retirees and disabled Americans. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the SSA had been 'ransacked' and that Doge members had been installed without proper vetting or training and had demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in a 17 April ruling found that Doge had failed to explain why its stated mission required 'unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems'. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' Hollander wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited Doge staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow Doge affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered Doge affiliates to 'disgorge and delete' any personal information already in their possession. Based in Richmond, Virginia, the fourth US circuit court of appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on 30 April to pause Hollander's block on Doge's unlimited access to SSA records. Justice department lawyers in their supreme court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. 'The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access,' they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which a fourth circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow Doge to access data at the US treasury and education departments and the office of personnel management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against Doge wrote that the case involving social security data was 'substantially stronger' with 'vastly greater stakes', citing 'detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records', such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
