€10 million in USAID-funded contraceptives to be incinerated in France
The US-funded supplies have been held in a Belgian warehouse since the suspension of international aid via USAID in January, and are now expected to be destroyed, the sources said.
The stock is to be transported to France, where a medical waste facility will handle its incineration. The Trump administration is expected to spend nearly $160,000 to destroy the stockpile of condoms, pills, and other contraceptive methods, which are set to expire between April 2027 and September 2031.
To avoid what many consider a senseless waste, several NGOs offered to purchase the supplies from Washington – but to no avail.
The NGO MSI Reproductive Choices proposed covering the cost of repackaging the supplies without the USAID logo and shipping them to countries in need, but the offer was rejected. "No viable alternative"
The Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed to Reuters that it had held discussions with US authorities and had 'explored all possible options to prevent the destruction, including temporary relocation.'
'Despite these efforts, and with full respect for our partners, no viable alternative could be secured,' the ministry said in a statement sent to the news agency.
'Sexual and reproductive health must not be subject to ideological constraints,' it added.
This decision by Washington is part of a broader dismantling of USAID, once the world's largest donor of humanitarian aid, with an annual budget of around $40 billion.
A 90-day freeze on USAID operations was declared on 20 January, the day President Trump took office. Two weeks later, Elon Musk, then one of his top advisers, announced the shutdown of the agency's global health programmes.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that 83% of USAID programmes would be terminated. On 1 July, the agency's remaining operations were folded into the State Department.
(bms, aw)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euractiv
4 hours ago
- Euractiv
The Brief – How Trump trounced Ursula
Perhaps the most humiliating aspect of the EU-US trade deal is that it's not even clear just how humiliating it actually is. The so-called 'framework agreement' – the EU's preferred euphemism for yesterday's Mafia-style shakedown – will likely see the average US tariff rate on EU exports increase from 13.5% to 16% on 1 August, according to Bloomberg Economics: about seven times higher than before Donald Trump's return to the White House in January. In exchange for America's beneficence, the EU pledged to reduce its already-minuscule levies on numerous products, including cars, chemicals, and food. Brussels will also boost purchases of US fossil fuels and weapons by more than $250 billion per year – an almost comically high figure that will soon turn the bloc's €50 billion net surplus with the US into a yawning deficit. Arguably, striking a deal this bad is something of an achievement in itself: the UK, a country with an economy and population less than a fifth as large as the EU, received considerably better terms – and was mercilessly mocked by European officials for doing so. Unfortunately for Europe, the deal – which EU chief Ursula von der Leyen preposterously claimed was 'the best we could get' – will probably end up being even worse than Brussels is alleging. This is for three reasons. First, the EU claims it has been granted a 'quota system' for steel and aluminium exports, in which a limited amount is taxed below Trump's 50% rate. (Somewhat pathetically, Brussels also says this provision is modelled on the UK's deal.) Trump, however, has explicitly denied that the agreement covers these metals – a claim corroborated by senior US officials. Similarly, the bloc alleges that pharmaceuticals are also included in the agreement, and in particular that pharma products will be hit by a maximum levy of 15% once Washington's so-called 'Section 232' investigation is concluded in a few weeks' time. Once again, however, Trump yesterday flatly denied that Europe's €120 billion worth of pharma exports are covered by the deal – a contradiction that EU officials, apparently, didn't believe was worth clarifying before proudly announcing the "biggest trade deal ever". (Adding to the confusion, a White House 'Fact Sheet' has since claimed that steel and aluminium are not included in the deal but that pharma products will be immediately hit with a 15% levy.) Finally, EU officials have offered virtually no details on the pledged $600 billion worth of 'additional' investments in US infrastructure – which come on top of the energy and weapons purchases – over the next few years. As it turns out, the deal that the EU is most closely modelled on, namely Japan's, offers worrying signs. The US has claimed, in true Godfather-fashion, that a staggering 90% of the profits from Japan's $550 billion worth of promised investments will accrue to the US taxpayer: a claim furiously rejected by Tokyo. Asked about the profit allocation of the EU's pledged investments, Commission officials refused to elaborate but instead sought to reassure reporters that, whatever happens, only private investors will be affected. 'From our side, it's private money,' said one official. 'From Japan, it's mostly public money.' There is a hint of comic (and perhaps cosmic) justice here. In her shambolic presentation of the EU budget earlier this month, von der Leyen clearly demonstrated that she didn't care about – or, really, understand – what she was planning to do with €2 trillion in public money. Demonstrating equal ambivalence about private cash is, in contrast to yesterday's agreement, only fair. But Sunday's events also offer wider political lessons. Indeed, upon reflection, the deal is the almost inevitable outcome of a declining great power placing its faith in an economically illiterate, mendacious, image-obsessed narcissist – and then asking that person to negotiate with Donald Trump. Roundup How bad can it get? – Barely a day after Ursula von der Leyen signed a trade pact with Donald Trump, it looks less like she averted a trade war and more like she surrendered in one. Trade isn't everything – The EU-US trade agreement is also "about Ukraine", Brussels' trade chief Maroš Šefčovič said on Monday, in an apparent admission that the much-criticised agreement with Washington was clinched to ensure continued American military support for Kyiv. How to spend tobacco tax – The Commission's plan to fund the bloc's next long-term budget with tobacco taxes could help reduce smoking, health experts say, while warning that the revenue should be deployed to support public health, rather than defence. Across Europe Belgian pharma looks for answers – 'President Trump stated that medicines are excluded from the agreement. However, the official statement from the European Union refers to a 'clear ceiling' of 15% on tariffs on pharmaceutical products,' told Euractiv. Curbing medicine fraud – Bulgaria has completed the full implementation of the European Union's medicines verification system, a milestone aimed at curbing the circulation of falsified pharmaceuticals and mitigating financial fraud. Give the man a break – Spanish premier Pedro Sánchez is beset by a corruption scandal that will likely haunt him his annual summer retreat. Despite his outer calm, the political crisis isn't going away.
Euractiv
4 hours ago
- Euractiv
Brussels opens door to selected US food imports as tariff threat looms
'We stayed firm on agriculture,' says EU official after US trade concessions Euractiv is part of the Trust Project Sofia Sanchez Manzanaro Euractiv Jul 28, 2025 15:33 2 min. read News Based on facts, either observed and verified directly by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Brussels will facilitate more imports of US agri-food products deemed "non-sensitive" for EU farmers – including nuts, soybeans, fish, and bison meat – under a trade deal struck on Sunday. A senior EU official said Monday that the agreement, reached by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump, also extends the so-called lobster deal, originally signed during Trump's first mandate in 2020. That deal has allowed duty-free US lobster exports to the EU ever since. While the US will continue to sell seafood and nuts to the EU, Brussels appears to have gained little in return for its agri-food sector, which remains exposed to Trump's 15% blanket tariff. American products – including pistachios, almonds, certain types of processed and raw fish, bison meat, some dairy products, and pet food – will enjoy greater market access to the EU, though final terms await a joint statement still being drafted. Notably, nuts and soybeans were among the products the EU had previously earmarked for retaliation in the event of new US tariffs. Tariff reductions could also extend to fertilisers, where the US could be an alternative supplier to Russia, the official said. More contentious items like beef, poultry, and sugar remain excluded from the concessions, they added. Brussels insists the move won't harm EU producers, as the goods are 'non-sensitive.' But European almond growers – especially in Spain, the world's second-largest producer – have long warned that cheaper Californian nuts threaten their survival. Meanwhile, Brussels is trying to salvage an exemption for spirits and wine – a highly lucrative export sector for the bloc that relies heavily on the US market – with negotiations still ongoing, the official said. The EU official maintained that the Commission 'stayed firm on agriculture' during talks with US counterparts.
Euractiv
5 hours ago
- Euractiv
Uncertainty is far from over, says Belgium's pharma sector
Agreement was reached on Sunday between the United States and Europe on import duties, but the details are still being worked out. 'There is still a great deal of uncertainty, particularly about the impact on the pharmaceutical sector,' told Euractiv. Confusion arose after US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen gave seemingly conflicting statements on the inclusion of medicines in the agreement. 'President Trump stated that medicines are excluded from the agreement. However, the official statement from the European Union refers to a 'clear ceiling' of 15% on tariffs on pharmaceutical products,' told Euractiv. Red flag raised 'During a press conference, President von der Leyen confirmed the 15% tariff. She added: 'Whatever decisions the American president makes later is another story,' referring to the ongoing investigation under Article 232,' said. The lack of clarity raises concerns in Belgium, home to one of the most robust pharmaceutical sectors in Europe. 'It is clear that the pharmaceutical sector is strategically important. Firstly, because of the enormous added value it brings to public health. But also because of its innovative strength, its positive contribution to productivity and, certainly in Belgium, its significant economic footprint (employment, investment, added value).' Belgian Prime Minister reacts cautiously Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever responded cautiously to the announcement on social media platform X. "As we await full details of the new EU–US trade agreement, one thing is clear: this is a moment of relief but not of celebration. Tariffs will increase in several areas, and some key questions remain unresolved." He praised Commission President von der Leyen's efforts, while urging a return to global openness: "I hope the United States will, in due course, turn away again from the delusion of protectionism and once again embrace the value of free trade – a cornerstone of shared prosperity." 'This deal doesn't make Europe stronger' Belgian MEP Kathleen Van Brempt voiced strong opposition to the agreement, warning in a statement of long-term strategic risks for Europe: 'Nobody benefits from a trade war. But that doesn't mean every deal is a good deal. And at first glance, there are plenty of reasons to be deeply critical of the current agreement.' She criticised the EU for conceding to pressure: 'Trump's illegal tariff war violates virtually every international trade rule in existence. Instead of drawing a clear red line, taking countermeasures, and pursuing legal action, Europe is bowing to this brutal power play.' Van Brempt questioned the value of the trade-off: 'Additional import tariffs on chips, cars and medicines, while the existing 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium, two sectors already under heavy pressure, remain unchanged. How does that make Europe stronger? And what exactly does our industry get in return?' She warned the deal could increase EU dependency: 'This deal doesn't make Europe stronger, it makes us more dependent. On their markets, their energy, their weapons. The billions we're now expected to invest in LNG and arms will be used by the US to invest in clean tech and national security.' Van Brempt concluded with a broader warning: 'This is a dangerous signal for rules-based trade. If we keep bending to coercion, we're not just undermining multilateralism, we're undermining ourselves. In the coming days, we must scrutinise every detail of this deal. But any deal that harms Europe in the long run and mortgages our future must go back to the drawing board.' Innovation framework under strain Current conditions could threaten Belgium's leadership in life sciences, warned. 'Innovation can only be successful within a strong and healthy market. At present, we note that the investment framework is lagging in this respect. This threatens to undermine Belgium's position as a leading region in the innovative pharmaceutical sector, as well as that of Europe.' To address these concerns, the industry association is urging a broader EU strategy, advocating for a European life sciences strategy that 'not only promotes a business-friendly climate but also works to strengthen intellectual property rights.' The organisation also drew attention to the issue of patient access to innovation. 'Europe, and Belgium in particular, is also lagging behind the United States in terms of making innovative medicines available. In the renewed multi-year framework for medicines, the Belgian government wants to work on a mechanism for earlier and faster reimbursement of promising medicines, but the budgetary scope is very limited. However, without valorisation, there can be no innovation.' [Edited by Vasiliki Angouridi, Brian Maguire]
