
Trump's permanent USAID cuts slam humanitarian programs worldwide: 'We are being pushed off a cliff'
The Trump administration's decision to terminate 90% of USAID's' foreign aid contracts slammed humanitarian projects worldwide on Thursday, from a new hospital in troubled Haiti to the biggest HIV program on the planet in South Africa.
Health groups, non-governmental organizations and others who received money from the U.S. aid agency to do good work had been bracing for bad news since President Donald Trump's executive order freezing the funding for a 90-day review on Jan. 20.
But even those who feared the worst were stunned by the extent of the permanent cuts announced Wednesday, barely a month into the review.
'We are being pushed off a cliff,' said Dr. Kate Rees, a public health specialist who works at one of the biggest NGOs fighting HIV in South Africa, the country worst affected by the disease. The NGO lost all its USAID grants, she said, when they were expecting their funding to be reduced.
Termination letters land worldwide
In the hours after the Trump administration announced it was cutting some $60 billion in funding, termination letters arrived at NGOs across the world. They advised that their programs providing life-saving assistance against hunger and disease and performing other humanitarian work were being ended.
The letters said that the programs were being defunded 'for convenience and the interests of the U.S. government,' according to a person with knowledge of the content who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
The letters added that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and an official acting as a deputy administrator of USAID 'have determined your award is not aligned with Agency priorities and made a determination that continuing this program is not in the national interests,' according to the person.
Some 10,000 USAID contracts were ended, according to InterAction, an alliance of international and American NGOs.
'Women and children will go hungry, food will rot in warehouses while families starve, children will be born with HIV — among other tragedies,' InterAction said. 'This needless suffering will not make America safer, stronger, or more prosperous. Rather, it will breed instability, migration, and desperation.'
Liz Schrayer, head of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a non-profit that promotes U.S. diplomatic and humanitarian efforts, said that the Trump administration's move would cede international influence to China, Russia and Iran. 'The American people deserve a transparent accounting of what will be lost – on counterterror, global health, food security, and competition,' she said.
'Appalled at the announcement'
Trump and advisor Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency have hit foreign aid harder and faster than almost any other target in their push to cut the size of the federal government. Both men say USAID projects advance a liberal agenda and are a waste of money.
The U.S. is by far the world's biggest donor and NGOs in almost every corner of the world had feared over the last month for their programs and the impact cuts would have on millions of vulnerable people they help.
The International Rescue Committee, which works in some of the worst humanitarian crises, said the 'widespread termination' of USAID funding could cut off help for millions of people and urged the U.S. administration to reconsider. The Danish Refugee Council said it was 'appalled at the announcement from the U.S. government to terminate nearly all its aid contracts.'
The impact was felt immediately at grass-roots level in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western hemisphere and wracked by gang violence, hunger and disease.
A desperately needed new hospital which was opened last week in the western coastal town of Petit-Trou-de-Nippes by the Colorado-based nonprofit Locally Haiti lost funding and six jobs for doctors and nurses and 13 positions for community health workers have been eliminated.
'We have this new health center, and now significant staff has been cut as it's opening,' said Wynn Walent, the organization's executive director. 'To see that being cut at this moment is incredibly dangerous.'
'We will see lives lost'
Health experts have raised alarm over the future of extensive and long-running HIV programs in Africa, where USAID has helped fund the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief started by President George W. Bush in 2003.
PEPFAR is credited with saving millions of lives in Africa and more than 26 million lives globally, largely by helping people get antiretroviral treatment that keeps the virus in check and keeps them alive.
In South Africa, which runs the biggest HIV program in the world providing treatment to 5.5 million people with U.S. assistance, an alliance of health groups said the cuts were a crisis and people would die.
'We will see lives lost,' said professor Linda-Gail Bekker, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Center. Among other work, the center oversaw studies that found a revolutionary new injectable drug can prevent HIV infections, but it has now lost USAID funding.
'We are going to see this epidemic walk back because of this," Bekker said.
The health groups said the U.S. government had abandoned the most vulnerable people in South Africa and abroad.
Bekker said that they expected the Trump administration to target specific programs like those that offer treatment for gay men and sex workers, but were astonished at how almost every program was cut. She said they didn't know of one HIV NGO or health center in South Africa that didn't lose its USAID funding.
'This has been across the board,' she said. 'This is programs for children, orphans, for young women and girls. It is not hyperbole that I predict a huge disaster ... unless we can fill the gap.'
___
AP writers Matthew Lee in Washington, Dánica Coto in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Monika Pronczuk in Dakar, Senegal, contributed to this report.
___

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


Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Why the Israel-Iran war could raise your taxes
If Rachel Reeves is to have any chance of making it to her autumn budget without U-turns or raising taxes, the improved economic forecasts of recent months need to come true. Missiles flying between Israel and Iran may destroy that hope. Things had been getting better for the Chancellor. Look at economic forecasts from the aftermath of Trump's 'liberation day', and there was a common theme when it came to Britain. Because of the nature of our economic relationship with America – as a massive exporter in services (we're their call centre) and with more or less balanced trade in goods – we would be shielded against the worst impacts of a trade slowdown. Global GDP growth would suffer, but the effects would not come to Britain. The real boon, if one was being positive, though was what effect these tariffs might have on inflation. While raising prices in the shops for American consumers, the view of the economic world was that for the UK they may in fact be disinflationary. That's because, as the consultancy firm Oxford Economics explained to their clients last month, dampening demand for commodities such as oil and gas would reduce the cost of products consumed in Britain. But all that was before the first Israeli missiles landed in Iran. A barrel of Brent crude now goes for over $70. On Monday it went for $65 – so there has been a 9 per cent in just five days. On Friday morning, it briefly spiked to nearly $80 in what was the sharpest price spike since Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. Within hours of Reeves delivering what director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson yesterday called an 'incomprehensible' spending review speech, economists were warning that tax rises in the autumn were becoming likely. Just a day later, a worse-than-expected GDP contraction turned likely into very likely. If oil prices continue climbing as the war escalates, tax rises could become certain. Some 20 billion barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz, or about 30 per cent of total global trade. So it's easy to see how if Tehran tried to attempt to close the Strait – as Iranian news reports it is considering – or even attacked a few tankers, the oil price would quickly head northwards again. Indeed the FT reported yesterday that the world's largest oil tanker company has stopped accepting new contracts to sail through the Strait. If oil prices do continue to rise – and some say disruption in the Strait could send the price over $100 a barrel – it would be mere days before Brits start paying the cost at the petrol forecourt. But oil supplies are crucial to much more than petrol and diesel and taken together, it's easy to see how the rate of inflation remains sticky or even begins to rise again. Given that the bond markets are keeping the cost of UK debt far higher than the Treasury has been used to – much more because of inflation worries and the after effects of money printing than is understood in Westminster – any signal that prices were rising again are not going to give them faith in Britain as a debtor. If that were to happen and gilt yields remain high, or even climb further, then Reeves could find herself in heaps of trouble. It surprises many City economists just how unequivocal the government has been about sticking to fiscal rules and indeed keeping Labour's manifesto promise not to 'raise taxes on working people' given how hard that is when Reeves only has £9.9 billion of headroom. Before her Spring Statement the chancellor talked of the economic challenges posed by a 'changing world'. Things in the middle east have a habit of spilling over and the world seems to be changing again. Could this once more be the excuse the chancellor has to reach for?


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Americans don't see Supreme Court as politically neutral, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds
WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) - Americans are divided on major issues that the U.S. Supreme Court is due to rule on in the coming weeks, but most agree on one thing - neither Republicans nor Democrats see the nation's top judicial body as politically neutral, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. Just 20% of respondents to the poll agreed that the Supreme Court is politically neutral while 58% disagreed and the rest either said they did not know or did not respond. Among people who described themselves as Democrats, only 10% agreed it was politically neutral and 74% disagreed, while among Republicans 29% agreed and 54% disagreed. The two-day poll, which closed on Thursday, was based on responses from 1,136 U.S. adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The court has issued major rulings in recent years including in cases rolling back abortion rights, expanding gun rights, recognizing presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts, rejecting race-conscious collegiate admissions and curbing the power of federal agencies. Its 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Republican President Donald Trump in his first term in office. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, 44% of respondents expressed a favorable view of the court, including 67% of Republicans and 26% of Democrats. The Supreme Court's popularity has declined since its June 2022 decision to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Some 57% of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted at the end of 2021 expressed a favorable opinion of the court. By the end of June 2022, that figure had fallen to 43%. The justices are expected to issue rulings in major cases in the coming weeks as they near the end of their current term that began in October. Among these cases are one on the legality of Tennessee's Republican-backed law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors and one involving Trump's executive order restricting automatic birthright citizenship, part of his hardline approach to immigration. Some 53% of respondents in the Reuters/Ipsos poll said they supported "laws that prevent transgender children under the age of 18 from getting medical treatment related to gender identity and gender transitioning." Another 28% opposed such laws and the rest were unsure or did not answer the question. Among Republicans, support for such laws was at 57% and opposition at 28%, while among Democrats support was at 23% and opposition at 54%. The Tennessee law prohibits medical treatments such as puberty blockers and hormones for transgender minors. During December 4 arguments in the case, the court's conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold the law. The eventual ruling could affect other state laws targeting transgender people. After Trump signed his birthright citizenship directive in January, 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants sued, arguing that it was a violation of citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, only 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The court also by the end of this month is expected to issue a ruling on the legality of a Texas law that requires people to verify the age online before accessing pornographic websites. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found strong support for such laws. Among all respondents, 70% were in support and 14% opposed. Among Democrats, 65% supported and 18% opposed, while among Republicans 80% supported and 7% opposed. During January 15 arguments in the case, the justices seemed to agree that states can try to keep adult material from minors but also voiced concern over burdens imposed on adults to view constitutionally protected material.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
G7 leaders meet in Canada hoping to avoid Trump clash
BANFF, Alberta, June 15 (Reuters) - Group of Seven leaders gather in the Canadian Rockies starting on Sunday amid growing splits with the United States over foreign policy and trade, with host Canada striving to avoid clashes with President Donald Trump. While Prime Minister Mark Carney says his priorities are strengthening peace and security, building critical mineral supply chains and creating jobs, issues such as U.S. tariffs and the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine are expected to feature heavily. U.S. ally Israel launched a barrage of strikes across Iran on Thursday, a blow to Trump's diplomatic efforts to prevent such an attack. The summit will take place in the mountain resort of Kananaskis, some 90 km (56 miles) west of Calgary. The last time Canada played host, in 2018, Trump left the summit before denouncing then Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "very dishonest and weak" and instructing the U.S. delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique. "This will be a successful meeting if Donald Trump doesn't have an eruption that disrupts the entire gathering. Anything above and beyond that is gravy," said University of Ottawa international affairs professor Roland Paris, who was foreign policy adviser to Trudeau. Trump has often mused about annexing Canada and arrives at a time when Carney is threatening reprisals if Washington does not lift tariffs on steel and aluminum. "The best-case scenario ... is that there's no real blow-ups coming out of the back end," said Josh Lipsky, the chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank and a former White House and State Department official. Carney's office declined to comment on how the Israeli strikes would affect the summit. Diplomats said Canada has ditched the idea of a traditional comprehensive joint communique and would issue chair summaries instead, in hopes of containing a disaster and maintaining engagement with the U.S. A senior Canadian official told reporters Ottawa wanted to focus on actions the seven members - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States - could take together. Canadian Senator Peter Boehm, a veteran former diplomat who acted as Trudeau's personal representative to the 2018 summit, said he had been told the summit would last longer than usual to give time for bilateral meetings with the U.S. president. Expected guests for parts of the Sunday to Tuesday event include leaders from Ukraine, Mexico, India, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Brazil, who all have reasons to want to talk to Trump. "Many will want to talk to President Trump about their own particular interests and concerns," Boehm said by phone. A senior U.S. official said on Friday working discussions would cover trade and the global economy, critical minerals, migrant and drug smuggling, wildfires, international security, artificial intelligence and energy security. "The president is eager to pursue his goals in all of these areas including making America's trade relationships fair and reciprocal," the official said. The visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the Oval Office in February descended into acrimony and has served as a warning for other world leaders about the delicate dance they face in negotiating with Trump. But diplomats say the frustration of dealing with the Trump administration has made some keener to assert themselves. Canada has long been one of Ukraine's most vocal supporters. Trump came to power promising to end the war with Russia within 24 hours but diplomatic efforts to end the conflict have stalled. One Ukrainian official involved in preparations for the summit said hope had faded for a strong statement in support of Ukraine. Instead, success for Kyiv would merely constitute an amicable meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy. A European official said the G7 summit and the NATO summit in The Hague later in June provided an opportunity to underscore to Trump the need to press ahead with a sanctions bill put together by U.S. senators alongside a new European package to pressure Russia into a ceasefire and broader talks. Trump's first international summit will offer some early clues on whether Trump is interested in working with allies to solve common problems, said Max Bergmann, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'The big overarching question here is, basically, is the United States still committed to formats like the G7? That is going to be the big test,' Bergmann said. French President Emmanuel Macron has said he has a good, but frank relationship with Trump despite differences on subjects such as Ukraine or climate change. Macron said on Friday that a United Nations conference co-hosted between France and Saudi Arabia scheduled after the G7 to work towards a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians has been postponed.