
The Trump Administration Is About to Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food
Sometime near the end of the Biden administration, USAID spent about $800,000 on the high-energy biscuits, one current and one former employee at the agency told me. The biscuits, which cram in the nutritional needs of a child under 5, are a stopgap measure, often used in scenarios where people have lost their homes in a natural disaster or fled a war faster than aid groups could set up a kitchen to receive them. They were stored in a Dubai warehouse and intended to go to the children this year.
Since January, when the Trump administration issued an executive order that halted virtually all American foreign assistance, federal workers have sent the new political leaders of USAID repeated requests to ship the biscuits while they were useful, according to the two USAID employees. USAID bought the biscuits intending to have the World Food Programme distribute them, and under previous circumstances, career staff could have handed off the biscuits to the United Nations agency on their own. But since Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency disbanded USAID and the State Department subsumed the agency, no money or aid items can move without the approval of the new heads of American foreign assistance, several current and former USAID employees told me. From January to mid-April, the responsibility rested with Pete Marocco, who worked across multiple agencies during the first Trump administration; then it passed to Jeremy Lewin, a law-school graduate in his 20s who was originally installed by DOGE and now has appointments at both USAID and State. Two of the USAID employees told me that staffers who sent the memos requesting approval to move the food never got a response and did not know whether Marocco or Lewin ever received them. (The State Department did not answer my questions about why the food was never distributed.)
In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told representatives on the House Appropriations Committee that he would ensure that food aid would reach its intended recipients before spoiling. But by then, the order to incinerate the biscuits (which I later reviewed) had already been sent. Rubio has insisted that the administration embraces America's responsibility to continue saving foreign lives, including through food aid. But in April, according to NPR, the U.S. government eliminated all humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and Yemen, where, the State Department said at the time, providing food risks benefiting terrorists. (The State Department has offered no similar justification for pulling aid to Pakistan.) Even if the administration was unwilling to send the biscuits to the originally intended countries, other places—Sudan, say, where war is fueling the world's worst famine in decades—could have benefited. Instead, the biscuits in the Dubai warehouse continue to approach their expiration date, after which their vitamin and fat content will begin to deteriorate rapidly. At this point, United Arab Emirates policy prevents the biscuits from even being repurposed as animal feed.
Over the coming weeks, the food will be destroyed at a cost of $130,000 to American taxpayers (on top of the $800,000 used to purchase the biscuits), according to current and former federal aid workers I spoke with. One current USAID staffer told me he'd never seen anywhere near this many biscuits trashed over his decades working in American foreign aid. Sometimes food isn't stored properly in warehouses, or a flood or a terrorist group complicates deliveries; that might result in, at most, a few dozen tons of fortified foods being lost in a given year. But several of the aid workers I spoke with reiterated that they have never before seen the U.S. government simply give up on food that could have been put to good use.
The emergency biscuits slated for destruction represent only a small fraction of America's typical annual investment in food aid. In fiscal year 2023, USAID purchased more than 1 million metric tons of food from U.S. producers. But the collapse of American foreign aid raises the stakes of every loss. Typically, the biscuits are the first thing that World Food Programme workers hand to Afghan families who are being forced out of Pakistan and back to their home country, which has been plagued by severe child malnutrition for years. Now the WFP can support only one of every 10 Afghans who are in urgent need of food assistance. The WFP projects that, globally, 58 million people are at risk for extreme hunger or starvation because this year, it lacks the money to feed them. Based on calculations from one of the current USAID employees I spoke with, the food marked for destruction could have met the nutritional needs of every child facing acute food insecurity in Gaza for a week.
Despite the administration's repeated promises to continue food aid, and Rubio's testimony that he would not allow existing food to go to waste, even more food could soon expire. Hundreds of thousands of boxes of emergency food pastes, also already purchased, are currently collecting dust in American warehouses. According to USAID inventory lists from January, more than 60,000 metric tons of food—much of it grown in America, and all already purchased by the U.S. government—were then sitting in warehouses across the world. That included 36,000 pounds of peas, oil, and cereal, which were stored in Djibouti and intended for distribution in Sudan and other countries in the Horn of Africa. A former senior official at USAID's Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance told me that, by the time she'd left her job earlier this month, very little of the food seemed to have moved; one of the current USAID employees I spoke with confirmed her impression, though he noted that, in recent weeks, small shipments have begun leaving the Djibouti warehouse.
Such operations are more difficult for USAID to manage today than they were last year because many of the humanitarian workers and supply-chain experts who once coordinated the movement of American-grown food to hungry people around the world no longer have their jobs. Last month, the CEOs of the two American companies that make another kind of emergency food for malnourished children both told The New York Times that the government seemed unsure of how to ship the food it had already purchased. Nor, they told me, have they received any new orders. (A State Department spokesperson told me that the department had recently approved additional purchases, but both CEOs told me they have yet to receive the orders. The State Department has not responded to further questions about these purchases.) But even if the Trump administration decides tomorrow to buy more food aid—or simply distribute what the government already owns while the food is still useful—it may no longer have the capacity to make sure anyone receives it.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump expected to push for 401(k) private assets: Pros & cons
US President Trump is expected to sign an executive order that would make it easier to own private assets in a retirement account. Yahoo Finance Senior Columnist Kerry Hannon breaks down what investors need to know. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. President Trump gearing up to sign an executive order to open retirement plans to private markets, senior columnist, Carrie Hannon is here with more, Carrie. Uh yes, um, the president is expected to sign uh an executive order directing the so the Securities and Exchange Commission to give guidance to mutual fund administrator for to four one K plan specifically administrators of how to add private assets into their retirement account offerings. And this is sort of a big deal. The fact is private assets have been a it's not illegal to have them in retirement accounts as it is. And pension funds have done this for decades. But the issue is most plan administrators don't really understand how to fold those into their four one K plan offerings. And there are some really good things about this. So we'll start with the pro stuff. If you were to put these this can be a variety of assets, right? It can be hedge funds, it can be private, um, uh, real estate things, infrastructure, all variety of things that most people don't quite get a grip on and to get into those assets you needed to have pretty high net worth or a minimum, the minimum requirement invest was fairly high. So the point is that this could actually help people give them an extra boost in their retirement accounts. It adds diversification to these retirement accounts. And when you think about people are living longer, Social Security shortfalls that people are worried about, cost of living is going up. So for people who are investing for the long run, and Larry Fink at BlackRock said over a 40 year period, these private assets could, you know, return 15% to someone. So this is rather significant if you look at it that way. But if you turn the corner and look the other way, if it's somebody who is not investing for the long term, they need to get the money out in a shorter time frame. These tend to be fairly illiquid, the fees can be high, and and there's a concern that people don't really understand what they are. And I'll just to finalize that by saying, you know, most people don't have a clue what they're investing in anyway. Um, most employers automatically put their their employees in target date funds which are plain vanilla index funds and people set them and forget them. So it will take a lot of education for people to understand and I'm a big fan of people understanding what they're investing in, but it's not all a negative thing. These can have some real good boost ultimately over the long run. If someone get a small percentage, I would say you wouldn't want more than 15% of your portfolio, your retirement savings in private assets. All right, Lou, get you in here. So let's say Lou, I'm private equity now Lou, I'm Blackstone, I'm KKR. And I say to you Lou, you know, all I'm trying to do Lou, I'm just trying to give people more options, I'm trying to give them more choices, right? And more diversification. What's wrong with, you know, maybe a chance to have a a meteor return? What's wrong with that? Yeah, I'll I'll play this game. I'm with Carrie, there's a lot of cons, but if you're BlackRock and KKR, I know this, pension funds and endowments aren't allocating as much money to you, and there's a huge pot at the end of the rainbow of about 9 to 12 trillion dollars in four one K accounts that seems really appealing to sell these highly liquid, uh not transparent, high feed products that could or could not outperform the S&P 500. I'm with Carrie, education is paramount. 43% of people only consider themselves financially literate based on our latest Finra study. That's a lot of people we got to educate before we give them access to things that are really difficult to understand. And Carrie, you know, Lou makes very good points as always. What would the private equity guys say Carrie? Would they say listen, you know what? Finance changes, investing changes, public markets change, and you got to change with it and so does your portfolio. Well, you know what I got to say? These are coming no matter what. So I think we can talk all we want, but I think this is this is definitely something that is coming down the road. Yes, things do change, but um, you know, the old 60 40 portfolio, which most retirement investors have been encouraged to have over the years, mixture of stocks and bonds, has done pretty well over time. But yes, we are in new times, but I just, you know, I think it's good to offer some extra uh oomph to people if that's possible, but it's it's a really tricky thing because this is money that people are socking away to really for their futures and and if they do, we see people pulling money out of their retirement accounts right now, you know, taking uh early early distributions, and this would be not a good situation. Carrie, great to see you as always. Enjoy the weekend. You too. Related Videos Q2 earnings trends to watch: Tariff mentions, AI, and outlooks Metafide CEO: Stablecoin Law "Great Thing for Market" Huntington Bank CFO: Q2 Earnings Were "Phenomenal" Why Netflix might want to 'pivot' to take on YouTube Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fed's Goolsbee defends Powell as 'totally honorable guy' amid White House attacks
Chicago Federal Reserve president Austan Goolsbee on Friday expressed support for Jerome Powell and central bank independence when asked about pressure being applied by President Trump, saying the Fed chair is a 'totally honorable guy.' 'I as well as a virtual unanimity of economists believe that central bank independence from political interference is absolutely critical to the operation of the Fed and of the economy,' Goolsbee said in an interview with Yahoo Finance. 'If you just look at places where they do not have independence for the central bank inflation is higher, growth is worse, unemployment and the job market do worse, and everyone knows that.' He added that "it pains me to hear people actively discussing whether the central bank should be independent. There's nothing good can come of discussion like that." His response follows an intense period of pressure from Trump and other White House officials frustrated with Powell's wait-and-see approach to interest rates and his cautionary comments on the possibility of persistent inflation from Trump's tariffs. Trump's allies in recent weeks used another tactic to turn up the pressure on Powell: They invoked a $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed's headquarters as a way to question the chair's management of the institution and whether he told Congress the truth about the project. This past week Trump denied that he was planning to fire Powell imminently, but also left the door open to that possibility. Goolsbee said he is a "big admirer" of Powell and considers him a "totally honorable guy" as well as a "first ballot hall of famer" without addressing any of specific criticism coming from the White House. Goolsbee on Friday also echoed Powell's caution on cutting interest rates, saying that 'we don't know until we know' how inflation will be affected by the 'drip drip' of tariff announcements. Powell has been arguing that more time is needed to know if any of Trump's tariffs push inflation higher this summer. Goolsbee said he is seeing tariffs push up prices on goods, but not spilling over into prices for services, saying that still keeps him in a 'wait and see' mode. A rolling, staggered implementation of tariffs, he noted, makes it more difficult to argue the impact of tariffs will be just be a one-time increase in prices. 'Anything that makes it harder to figure out if we are on a path back to 2% inflation is extending the timetable of when the rate cuts can happen,' said Goolsbee. He declined to say whether he sees rate cuts in the fall months of this year, noting that if there are multiple more months of benign readings on inflation he would feel more comfortable cutting. But if he started to see a ramp up in prices with higher tariff rates, then he said he would have to assess the impact. 'Rates can come down, but we don't know if we're on the path to 2% inflation because we don't know on tariffs on energy prices and geopolitics,' said Goolsbee. 'We're going to have to wait and see what what's happening in the data.' Fed governor Christopher Waller said Thursday he believes the central bank should cut rates at the next policy meeting on July 29-20, as he again argued that any inflation from tariffs would be temporary, underscoring a divide within the central bank. He also hinted he may dissent at the July meeting if his colleagues decide to hold rates steady, which is what investors expect will happen. Odds priced in by traders for a rate cut in September only sit at nearly 60%. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Buzz Feed
11 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Colbert's Trump Joke May Have Led To Show Cancelation
CBS stunned fans of The Late Show on Thursday after it announced that it would cancel the Stephen Colbert -led program, a move that renewed attention to a recent jab that the host made toward the network's parent company over its heavily panned $16 million settlement with President Donald Trump. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) shared a clip from Colbert's Monday monologue on social media where he slammed Paramount Global for settling a lawsuit with Trump, who claimed that a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to aid her chances of winning the election. That settlement notably arrived as Paramount looks to merge with Skydance Media in a multibillion-dollar deal, one that requires approval from the Trump administration to proceed. 'As someone who has always been a proud employee of this network, I am offended. I don't know if anything — anything — will repair my trust in this company,' Colbert quipped. 'But, just taking a stab at it, I'd say $16 million would help.' The host proceeded to point out that Paramount once described the lawsuit as 'completely without merit' before joking that the company put a price tag on its 'dignity' and referred to the settlement as a 'big fat bribe.' Colbert, a frequent Trump critic, previously made fun of Paramount back in May amid reports that the company was ready to settle the lawsuit. Warren echoed Colbert's sentiment as she wrote on X that the deal 'looks like bribery' and America 'deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons.' CBS canceled Colbert's show just THREE DAYS after Colbert called out CBS parent company Paramount for its $16M settlement with Trump – a deal that looks like bribery. America deserves to know if his show was canceled for political reasons. Watch and share his message. — Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 18, 2025 CBS In May, Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and other lawmakers sent a letter to Paramount Global chair Shari Redstone warning her not to make a 'grave mistake' by settling the lawsuit. At the time, Sanders — when asked by Colbert about the letter to his 'ultimate boss' — quipped that it could be the host's 'last show' before stressing that such a deal could set a dangerous precedent for other media companies. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who is set to appear on Thursday's episode of 'The Late Show,' also criticized CBS' move.'If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better,' Schiff wrote on X. Just finished taping with Stephen Colbert who announced his show was cancelled. If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better. — Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) July 17, 2025 Other critics alleged that the move by CBS was politically motivated, although the network claims it was ' purely a financial decision ': CBS sells out…again. — Martin Heinrich (@SenatorHeinrich) July 18, 2025 Stephen Colbert's show was canceled three days after he called out Paramount, CBS's parent company, for folding to Trump with a $16M settlement for a lawsuit that even they called 'without merit." People deserve to know if this is a politically motivated attack on free speech. — Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) July 18, 2025 Colbert to be canceled May 2026. A direct result of Paramount paying Trump 60 million. — Steve Martin (@UnrealBluegrass) July 18, 2025 Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images 'This is purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night,' top CBS executives said in a statement announcing the news. 'It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount.' — Bill Simmons (@BillSimmons) July 18, 2025 Paramount Colbert has the highest ratings of any late night host. "Financial reasons" my ass. This is political. — Charlotte Clymer 🇺🇦 (@cmclymer) July 18, 2025 On the one hand: There *is* an economic rationale for this. Late night shows aren't cheap (w/ giant talent salaries) and they don't deliver traditional strong ratings anymore. Other hand: I don't believe them. It's not the money in this case. — Michael Socolow (@MichaelSocolow) July 17, 2025 Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images If Donald Trump is going to get Stephen Colbert canceled, Stephen Colbert should talk about Donald Trump & Jeffrey Epstein every night on his show until it's off the air. — Evan (@daviddunn177) July 18, 2025 Stephen Colbert doesn't need CBS anyway. Wherever he ends up, people are going to watch him even harder now. All CBS did was solidify the fact that they'll be know until the end of time as just another spineless corporation that couldn't do the right thing. — Karly Kingsley (@karlykingsley) July 18, 2025