Trump tore apart global aid - here's how the world will suffer
What happens when the Donald Trump slashes humanitarian aid? In this episode of Decomplicated: America's USAID cuts, and why they matter.
From disaster relief to healthcare, these programmes keep millions of people afloat—so what happens when the funding disappears?
Well, according to The Independent's data correspondent Alicja Hagopian, expect food shortages, medical crises, and global instability. Who's hit hardest, why it's happening, and what the world might do next?
Watch more from Decomplicated on Independent TV.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Live Donald Trump is named in Epstein files, claims Musk
Elon Musk has dropped a bombshell accusation, claiming his former close friend Donald Trump appears in the Epstein files. The claim was part of a spectacular war of words between the world's most powerful men, with the president claiming the Tesla boss has 'Trump derangement syndrome', and Mr Musk insisting Mr Trump only won the election because of him. Mr Musk said in a post on X: Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 5, 2025 Earlier in the day Mr Trump told reporters during a sit-down with Friedrich Merz, Germany's new chancellor: 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' In February, Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, pledged to release all of the information the government holds on Epstein, which have come to be colloquially known as the 'Epstein files'. She invited a select group of pro-Maga influencers to the White House where they were handed binders containing what she said was 'Phase One' of the full document release. However, the 200-page document contained only phone-book contacts and flight logs, most of which have been available since 2015, and no date has been set for releasing the remaining files.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
Eradicating child poverty must become Labour's central mission
It is much more than a flip rhetorical cliche to say that if a nation thinks that fighting child poverty is costly, then it should try the alternative. It really should not be a matter of great controversy. The broadly warm welcome given to the government's expansion of the free school meals programme has been marred only by some noisy mumblings about how the policy will be funded. Of course, any item of public spending must be accounted for – but in the case of this and similar measures to alleviate child poverty, both sides of the ledger should be taken into account. Experience in Scotland, Wales and London – where free and nutritious meals are already available more widely – suggests that pupils perform better on a full stomach; something that surely accords with common sense. Academic studies go further, linking higher educational achievements with higher productivity and thus better living standards for those lifted out of poverty – with an obvious dividend for the nation as a whole. Official support for children, including the new breakfast clubs, a wider availability of free school meals, childcare, access to libraries, affordable housing and of course their education itself, should be treated less as 'current' spending and more like an investment. These are the kind of arguments The Independent has long put forward, as part of an award-winning campaign, and are compatible with fiscal sustainability. In essence, though it is not meant to be mercenary, money spent on rearing a healthier, more literate, more numerate and more intellectually able generation is, in the long run, as valid an investment as, say, building a new tramway or bolstering the national grid. 'Human capital' is, ironically, more precious than ever in a world where artificial intelligence will take over so many of the tasks currently undertaken by human beings. For people to enjoy socially useful and economically viable lives in the future, they will need to be smarter than the machines that will surround them. Soon enough, chancellor Rachel Reeves will be able to go further and faster, as the current ministerial catchphrase goes, in the Labour government's newfound mission to reduce child poverty. After years when the party seemed to be undeclared disciples of the austerity school of economics, Labour's conscience, albeit prompted by some shocking electoral setbacks, has been awoken. Eradicating child poverty by 2020 was the noble objective set by Tony Blair early in the last Labour government, enshrined in law during the last days of Gordon Brown's administration, revived in Jeremy Corbyn's time, but frankly neglected, beyond some necessary lip service, in more recent years. Now, it has rightly become a priority, and one that has lodged itself high on the long list of social challenges facing the chancellor. It now seems inevitable that the two-cap limit on child benefit, imposed by a Tory chancellor almost a decade ago, will be lifted, sooner or later, and perhaps 300,000 children in larger families lifted out of poverty immediately. That it will be partly under populist pressure from Nigel Farage does not make it a bad idea. Extending child benefit, like school meals, is not a total cure for child poverty. Where the Tories had a point as they downgraded the poverty targets in the past (which, to be clear, was a mistake) was when they stressed the importance of a healthy economy creating well-paid jobs. Child poverty is linked to general levels of poverty, obviously, and the creation of wealth still counts as the essential basis for a fairer society – and human capital is part of that. Even with these latest measures, continuing care will need to be taken to make sure the free school meals are nutritious and promote good physical and mental health. Other policy areas also need to be attended to. No level of child benefit or childcare will entirely compensate for being brought up in a cramped, overcrowded, mouldy, cold home. Other policies will thus have to contribute to giving every British child the best opportunities in life. In that context, the government's child poverty task force might consider how the SureStart centres could be restored. Arguably the most serious misjudgement of the coalition government of 2010 to 2014 was to scrap them. In any case, without much in the way of conscious effort, indeed almost by accident, Sir Keir Starmer's government has found itself endowed with a new, invigorating mission to pursue. For all the problems, disappointments, gaffes and missteps in their first year out of the wilderness, the Labour Party has rediscovered its raison d'etre.
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Such ingratitude': Trump and Musk alliance devolves into bitter feud
Donald Trump's relationship with Elon Musk appeared on the precipice of devolving into bitter personal acrimony on Thursday as the onetime special adviser publicly assailed the president for being ungrateful for the millions he spent to get him elected. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk said in a post on X. He added: 'Such ingratitude.' The direct shot at Trump was the latest twist in a rapidly deteriorating alliance. Trump and Musk had been careful not to hit each other directly, but they both discarded restraint as what started as a dispute over Trump's domestic spending bill escalated. Musk taking credit for Trump's election win threatens to be a touchpoint for their relationship, in particular. Trump had made a point to say Musk's contribution had no bearing on his ability to win the crucial battleground state of Pennsylvania in the 2024 election. The Trump-Musk relationship may yet get worse. Hours after the feud kicked off, Trump threatened to punish Musk, posting on Truth Social: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Shares of Tesla, Musk's electronic vehicle company, fell nearly 12% shortly after midday, with the decline timed to when Trump's remarks began. For weeks, Musk has complained about the proposed Republican budget bill and used the non-partisan congressional budget office estimating the bill would add $2.4tn to the deficit over the next decade as an opening to slam the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination'. On Thursday, Trump appeared to finally have had enough of Musk's complaints. Speaking in the Oval Office as German chancellor Friedrich Merz looked on in bemusement, Trump mocked Musk's recent black eye and questioned why he didn't cover it up. 'You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk. Even with a black eye. I said, do you want a little makeup? He said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting,' Trump said. 'Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore.' Trump then ratcheted up his barbs at Musk, accusing him of turning against the bill solely out of self-interest, as the bill did not benefit Tesla, Musk's electronic vehicle company, and Trump pulled the nomination of Musk's preferred candidate to lead Nasa. 'I'm very disappointed with Elon,' Trump said. 'He had no problem with it. All of a sudden he had a problem & he only developed the problem when he found out we're going to cut EV mandate.' An unrestrained Musk hit back within minutes of the clip being posted on X, seemingly learning of Trump's comments in real time. As Washington watched in disbelief at the back and forth playing out online, Musk effectively accused Trump of lying. 'False, this bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!' Musk posted. The public feud comes after a remarkable partnership that lasted longer than many Democrats on Capitol Hill and in Trump's orbit predicted. Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Trump's re-election campaign through his specially created America Pac which shouldered a large portion of Trump's door-knocking campaign, although that the actual impact of that ground game effort is unclear.
