US to destroy almost $10m in contraceptives rather than send abroad for women in need
Trump administration
has decided to destroy $9.7 million (€8.34m) worth of contraceptives rather than send them abroad to women in need.
A state department spokesperson confirmed that the decision had been made – a move that will cost US taxpayers $167,000. The contraceptives are primarily long-acting, such as IUDs and birth control implants, and were almost certainly intended for women in Africa, according to two senior congressional aides, one of whom visited a warehouse in Belgium that housed the contraceptives. It is not clear to the aides whether the destruction has already been carried out, but said they had been told that it was set to occur by the end of July.
'It is unacceptable that the State Department would move forward with the destruction of more than $9m in taxpayer-funded family planning commodities purchased to support women in crisis settings, including war zones and refugee camps,' Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic senator from New Hampshire, said in a statement. Ms Shaheen and Brian Schatz, a Democratic senator from Hawaii, have introduced legislation to stop the destruction.
'This is a waste of US taxpayer dollars and an abdication of US global leadership in preventing unintended pregnancies, unsafe abortions and maternal deaths,' added Ms Shaheen, who in June sent a letter to the secretary of state,
Marco Rubio
, about the matter.
READ MORE
The department decided to destroy the contraceptives because it could not sell them to any 'eligible buyers', in part because of US laws and rules that prohibit sending US aid to organisations that provide abortion services, counsel people about the procedure or advocate for the right to it overseas, according to the state department spokesperson.
Most of the contraceptives have less than 70 per cent of their shelf life left before they expire, the spokesperson said, and rebranding and selling the contraceptives could cost several million dollars. However, the aide who visited the warehouse said that the earliest expiration date they saw on the contraceptives was 2027, and that two-thirds of the contraceptives did not have any
USAid
labels that would need to be rebranded.
The eradication of the contraceptives is part of the Trump administration's months-long demolition of the Agency for International Development (USAid), the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid in the world. After the unofficial 'department of Government efficiency' (Doge) erased 83 per cent of USAID's programmes, Rubio announced in June that USAID's entire international workforce would be abolished and its foreign assistance programs would be moved to the state department. The agency will be replaced by an organisation called United States First.
In total, the funding cuts to USAid could lead to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, according to a recent study published in the journal the Lancet. A third of those deaths could be children.
'If you have an unintended pregnancy and you end up having to seek unsafe abortion, it's quite likely that you will die,' said Sarah Shaw, the associate director of advocacy at MSI Reproductive Choices, a global family planning organisation that works in nearly 40 countries. 'If you're not given the means to space or limit your births, you're putting your life at risk or your child's life at risk.'
The fact that the contraceptives are going to be burned when there's so much need – it's just egregious Sar Shaw, MSI Reproductive Choices
MSI tried to purchase the contraceptives from the US Government, Ms Shaw said. But the Government would only accept full price – which Shaw said the agency could not afford, given that MSI would also have to shoulder the expense of transportingthe contraceptives and the fact that they are inching closer to their expiration date, which could affect MSI's ability to distribute them.
The state department spokesperson did not specifically respond to a request for comment on Ms Shaw's allegation, but MSI does provide abortions as part of its global work, which may have led the department to rule it out as an 'eligible buyer'.
In an internal survey, MSI programs in 10 countries reported that, within the next month, they expect to be out of stock or be on the brink of being out of stock of at least one contraceptive method. The countries include Burkina Faso, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Senegal, Kenya and Sierra Leone.
Ms Shaw expects the stock to be incinerated. 'The fact that the contraceptives are going to be burned when there's so much need – it's just egregious,' she said. 'It's disgusting.' The Department of State spokesperson did not respond to a request for information on the planned method of destruction.
The destruction of the contraceptives is, to Ms Shaw, emblematic of the overall destruction of a system that once provided worldwide help to women and families. USAid funding is threaded through so much of the global supply chain of family planning aid that, without its money, the chain has come apart. In Mali, Ms Shaw said, USAid helped pay for the gas used by the vehicles that transport contraceptives from a warehouse. Without the gas money, the vehicles were stuck – and so were the contraceptives.
'I've worked in this sector for over 20 years and I've never seen anything on this scale,' Ms Shaw said. 'The speed at which they've managed to dismantle excellent work and really great progress – I mean, it's just vanished in weeks.'
Food waste
Other kinds of assistance are also reportedly being wasted. This week, the Atlantic reported that almost 500 metric tons of emergency food were expiring and would be incinerated, rather than being used to feed about 1.5 million children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Meanwhile, almost 800,000 Mpox vaccines that were supposed to be sent to Africa are now unusable because they are too close to their expiration date, according to Politico.
The cuts to foreign aid are slated to deepen. Early on Friday morning, Congress passed a bill to claw back roughly $8 billion that had been earmarked for foreign assistance.
'It's not just about an empty shelf,' Ms Shaw said. 'It's about unfulfilled potential. It's about a girl having to drop out of school. It's about someone having to seek an unsafe abortion and risking their lives. That's what it's really about.' – Guardian
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
Epstein saga has exposed cracks in Maga movement which could fatally undermine Donald Trump
The second Trump administration has featured many scandals: his shameless corruption, his pardoning of the January 6th insurrectionists, his pushing a Bill that strips millions from healthcare to give more money to those who need it the least, his backing for the Israeli genocide of Palestinians and Israel's other reckless wars in the Middle East. All these things seem more important than whether his justice department relents and releases its files on the Jeffrey Epstein case. Yet, this is the one scandal from which Trump can't seem to escape, and the one that might prove the most damaging for him politically. No one is more aware of this than Trump himself. It is a sign of his desperation to move on from the Epstein story that on Wednesday – at a bizarre press conference with the president of the Philippines looking on – he ranted about Barack Obama's supposed corruption. READ MORE He claimed that Obama was guilty of 'treason' and that he tried to 'lead a coup' with faked intelligence about Russian interference in the election. It was a transparent effort to change the story. The embattled Trump even admitted as much: 'It's time to go after people.' In the past, he has had a brilliant knack for deflecting negative attention from himself to others. During the 2016 campaign, it seemed like he was finished when the Access Hollywood tapes emerged which captured him bragging about groping women. But before the next presidential debate, he assembled a press conference of several women who claimed to be victims of sexual harassment by Bill Clinton . It worked then; it allowed enough voters to come to the cynical conclusion that all politicians are equally corrupt. The tactic is unlikely to work this time. Attacking Obama is something of a reflex for Trump, who rose to prominence promoting the 'birther' conspiracy theory that Obama was born outside the US. Trump's run for the presidency was, people close to him has said, partly a desire for vengeance against Obama after the then-president mercilessly mocked him at the fateful 2011 White House correspondents' dinner (Obama's quips included: 'No one is happier, no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than the Donald. And that's because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter–— like, did we fake the Moon landing'). But Obama is arguably the politician that the public would least expect to have anything to do with a sexual predator like Epstein. Bill Clinton was in fact friends with Epstein, but his presidency ended so long ago that attacking him just doesn't have much purchase any more. [ White House claims 'fake news' over reports Donald Trump named in Epstein files Opens in new window ] Donald Trump, Melania Knauss (later, Melania Trump), Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club in 2000. Photograph: Davidoff Studios/ Getty Images This time, Trump hasn't been able to shift the narrative. That is partly because, as Ciarán O'Connor wrote this week , once the flames of conspiracy theories have been fanned, they are difficult to extinguish. But it is also because it goes to the same open secret that was at the centre of the Access Hollywood scandal: Trump's serial pattern of sexual abuse makes the notion that he has something to hide more plausible. To paraphrase congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who would have thought that electing a sexual offender would have complicated the release of the Epstein files? In 2023, a civil court ruled that Trump had sexually abused E Jean Carroll. By one count, at least 18 women have accused Trump of sexual assault or sexual harassment. The controversy over the release of the Epstein files has also resurfaced, leading to renewed attention on Trump's once close relationship with him. Epstein's brother has suggested that Trump was once Jeffrey Epstein's 'best friend'. The Wall Street Journal published a card that it claimed Trump sent Epstein on his 50th birthday with a lewd drawing of a woman and a reference to a 'wonderful secret'. Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over the report, which he vehemently denies. It's possible that there is nothing in the Epstein files that reveals damaging information about Trump. But that is now almost beside the point. The political significance of the Epstein controversy is that it has hurt Trump's standing among his own base, which was already upset about his breaking America First principles by joining Israel's war against Iran. Though Trump has been unpopular with many Americans for most of the last decade, his political strength has been the unshakeable support of his base, which has allowed him to dominate the Republican Party. [ Bill Clinton reportedly sent Jeffrey Epstein note for birthday album Opens in new window ] This time, Trump hasn't been able to shift the narrative. Photograph: Anna Moneymaker/ Getty Images As he himself once boasted, 'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose any voters.' But it is symptomatic of his hubris that he promoted the conspiracy theory about Epstein, someone who was once a close associate. Under pressure from a disaffected Maga base, a significant number of Republican legislators broke with Trump for the first time in this second term. Rather than face a vote on whether to release the Epstein files that he was certain to lose, House Speaker Mike Johnson simply declared that they would break for summer early, even though that meant abandoning parts of the Republican agenda. But significantly, three Republicans on the ten-member House Committee on Oversight joined Democrats to subpoena the justice department for its Epstein files. Republicans Nancy Mace of South Carolina, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Brian Jack of Georgia sided with Democrats. Democrats certainly don't consider the Epstein case to be the most significant issue facing the US – but they smell a rare political opportunity to exploit cracks in the Maga movement. They recognise that Trump is in a lose-lose situation. It seems unlikely he will release any information too damaging about himself. Yet, if he refuses to release files or releases them but there's nothing significant in them, many – and not only conspiracy theorists – will wonder if key information is being withheld. It's certainly possible that the Epstein controversy will blow over. Come September, when the US legislature reconvenes, we may all be talking about something else: a national or world crisis, quite possibly one of Trump's own making. And yet the cracks it has revealed in MAGA are potentially disastrous for Trump's power, dampening enthusiasm for Republican candidates at the next election, and undermining his tight control of the Republican Party.
Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
A lesson from The Godfather as Wall Street backs crypto assets it once dismissed as a ‘fraud'
One of the joys of writing a weekly column is the unusual tributaries explored, often sparked by real-world events. Today I've been watching old clips of The Godfather, in particular Marlon Brando's extraordinary performance as Don Vito, head of the Corleone family. In one of the film's subplots, Vito shuns the narcotics trade, preferring the steady vice of gambling. From a moral position, he rejects family involvement in the more lucrative but dirtier business of drug dealing. Despite the old man's misgivings, eventually his sons get the family into drugs because that is where they'll find new and apparently easy money. Easy money has always been a powerful financial aphrodisiac. Scenes from The Godfather come to mind as we see yet another member of the Wall Street establishment embrace what they had previously shunned: cryptocurrency . This week, one of the world's most important bankers, Jamie Dimon , chief of JPMorgan , who once described crypto as a 'fraud', suggested the bank might use clients' crypto holdings as collateral for loans in dollars. This is a massive U-turn. Meanwhile, Donald Trump, who also previously dismissed cryptocurrencies, has increased his attacks on the Federal Reserve, the institution charged with preserving the integrity of the dollar, the very currency that the crypto enthusiasts see as the problem. For the more extreme advocates of cryptocurrencies the death of the dollar (the world's most successful state-sponsored public money) is the ultimate aim. But for the elected US president, the strength of the dollar – and its institutions – should be the ultimate prize. [ If you want to understand America and politics, read The Godfather Opens in new window ] The prospect of easy money has got in the way, affecting Wall Street's judgment and the president's back pocket. Now they are on a collision course with one of the few, previously immutable signs of American power, the dollar and its custodians. Once more, the lure of quick and easy money is proving too much. READ MORE Cryptocurrencies and the future of money are fascinating topics. A useful way to look at crypto's growth is not as some new form of money, but as a well-financed lobby group. If there is easy money to be made, the quickest way to do this is attack regulators, and ultimately enlist them, while spreading the new gospel. In the beginning, crypto was the ultimate anti-Wall Street phenomenon. Crypto capitalised on an era – after the 2008 crash – when public trust in democratic institutions and markets reached a new low. The promise of crypto was a new democratic, egalitarian and honest form of money, and its manifesto involved a kind of revolutionary appeal – smashing the establishment's hold on finance and opening up the world of money beyond Wall Street. At least, that was the spin. Rather than being issued by allegedly corrupt governments, some cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, are governed by incorruptible algorithms, underpinned by a new technology called blockchain, made possible by the data revolution. Bitcoin in particular, and crypto currencies in general, were supposed to be used to buy stuff – that old 'money as a medium of exchange' thing – but this has not transpired. Instead, it has come to be seen as a store of wealth that many millions of people believe in – which is fair enough if that's what they want to put their financial faith in. Most crypto is nothing more than a private printing press for the TikTok age. Bitcoin has a fixed quantity issued, but it is still nothing more than a financial Pokémon card backed by nothing except hype As its price rises, more people will be attracted to it, despite it having no fundamental value or income accruing to it. How can this be sustained? Well, the best way to keep an asset price inflated is to have more and more people with a stake in it. In time, there will be a significant group of people with an interest in maintaining its value, talking it up. They will lean on regulators to bolster, protect and disseminate it and ultimately drive up or at least maintain its price. The best way to do this is through extended distribution channels. To protect their own wealth, the Bitcoiners have conscripted Wall Street to market Bitcoin to the masses via exchange traded funds, a mechanism that allows investors to buy and sell Bitcoin in greater numbers, and more transparently. Bitcoiners have got into bed with the very firms they once lambasted as corrupt. The original alternative protest investment has gone mainstream. Allying with Wall Street and lobbying regulators is a long way from Bitcoin's original impetus. This was a bet on the complete collapse of the western political order and the end of money. Early adopters were part of a doomsday cult, believing regimes were about to collapse under hyperinflation that would devalue all major currencies. Bitcoin would then emerge as the great saviour. These Armageddonist tendencies mean Bitcoin's more extreme promoters tended to cheerlead political forces that might undermine the West. Finding them on social media applauding regimes such as Putin's Russia is not a surprise. Don't get me wrong – I am not offering financial advice. People can do what they want with their money. My point is that Bitcoin is not money in any definition I understand. Bitcoin is more a financial lobby group than a new form of money. Like most lobby groups, the game is to force its agenda on the authorities to enhance the interests of owners who stand to benefit most. Alarm bells should ring when very rich people – in this case, early adopters who bought Bitcoin for pennies and have therefore become astronomically wealthy – lobby the state to legitimise something intended to be illegitimate, and seek to enlist and enrich Wall Street in the process. [ Bitcoin's real value is based on the greater fool theory Opens in new window ] Never in their wildest dream could crypto promoters have imagined the US president and his sons would become the biggest promoters of a token that sought to undermine the dollar. But that is where we are. In recent months the Trump family has increased its wealthdue to the surge in crypto valuations. The lobby group is running policy. Remember most crypto is nothing more than a private printing press for the TikTok age. Bitcoin is different as it has a fixed quantity issued, but it is still nothing more than a digital token – a financial Pokémon card – backed by nothing except hype. Where the president goes, Wall Street follows: profits drive everything and we get to a point where major investment banks, funds and finance houses are getting behind digital tokens which they once, rightly, dismissed as a fraud. The history of money tells us such episodes rarely end well. See The Godfather. Life imitates art, imitating life. In Trump's America, what is fact and what is fiction have blurred before our very eyes.
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
‘I will not be intimidated': But has Rupert Murdoch met his nemesis in Donald Trump?
Whenever Donald Trump wishes to feel like a young buck again, he need only look at Rupert Murdoch . The Australian-born media mogul has earned the right to be considered a relic of a vanished time for the industry and now, in his tenth decade on earth, he finds himself in the most ferocious legal battle of his life with the former New York construction playboy turned US president. 'I'm 94 years old,' Murdoch was reported as saying about the $10 billion (€8.5 billion) lawsuit Trump's legal team has issued against his prize publication, The Wall Street Journal. 'I will not be intimidated.' In February, images flashed around the world of Murdoch sitting in the Oval Office with Trump: just another billionaire coming to pay homage to the sun king. It had been a busy day in the Oval: foreign royalty, Elon Musk and his son – 'This is X and he's a great guy,' the US president said, introducing the five year old to the press pool. 'A very high IQ' – followed by US treasury secretary Scott Bessent , all in a single cold spring day. Towards the end of the live media session, Trump prompted the camera to focus on two other guests: Murdoch and the billionaire Larry Ellison were in the room, sitting against the wall on modest chairs. The seating arrangement was not by chance. Murdoch looked like a wizened little boy, allowed to watch the big boys play for a treat. READ MORE 'You may have a couple of bucks more,' Trump said cheerfully to Ellison, clarifying the wealth-hierarchy, 'but Rupert is in a class by himself; he's an amazing guy.' Murdoch smiled, but when the moment passed his face turned stony. One of the many contradictions about Trump is that deep down he is a devotee of old media. The magazine covers matter to him in a way that digital publications never can. Whenever any of the prestige 'fake news media' says anything remotely positive about his administration, it will be pointed out by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt at the weekly briefing as a contrary QED: if the fake news media is saying something good, then it must be true. Trump understands Murdoch's twilight world, but he may not fully understand the omnipotence that the Australian felt he possessed back when tabloid culture held political sway in Britain. 'It's the Sun Wot Won It,' the front page of that tabloid crowed after Tory prime minister John Major defeated Labour's Neil Kinnock in the April 1992 general election. Twenty years later, Murdoch, giving evidence at the Leveson inquiry into the phone-hacking scandal which saw the group shut the doors on the 168-year-old News of the World, Murdoch recalled he had given the Sun's editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, 'a hell of a bollocking' over that front-page headline. 'Anti-democratic is too strong a word. It was tasteless and wrong,' he said. Nothing like as tasteless or as wrong, of course, as the depiction of Liverpool football fans after the Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. The Sun, now far from the force in English society that it was then, remains verboten in Liverpool. It is likely it will be 'banned' in that city decades after it has ceased to exist in print form. But Murdoch's newspapers, including the New York Post and the WSJ, are still capable of driving story lines. Last week's publication of the story claiming that Trump had sent a suggestive letter to Jeffrey Epstein as part of a birthday book compilation led to the instant lawsuit. Trump, clearly angered, said he warned the Journal's editor, Emma Tucker, that the letter was not his work. Tucker backed her staff. They decided to publish anyway and have since led other US publications on the story. The media landscape is in the midst of an earthquake. Over the past week, broadcaster CBS's parent company Paramount settled a $16 million lawsuit with Trump, announced that this would be the final season of CBS's flagship late-night satire show with Stephen Colbert and – hey presto – the $8 billion merger between Paramount and Skydance was approved by federal regulators. Fox News is one of the main income drivers now for the Murdoch empire. And it remains the touchstone for hard-core Trump Republicans, who can feast on a series of evening shows lavishing praise on the US president while ridiculing the Democrats and the left in general. Unsurprisingly, the Epstein story has been covered sparingly by its hosts. But Trump has neither forgotten nor fully forgiven the decision by Fox to 'call' the crucial Arizona state against him in the 2020 election. Now the Fox News political hero is suing the owner of Fox News. 'What rich irony that the defence against the latest assault by Trump on press freedom is now in the hands of old crocodile Rupert Murdoch, the very media owner whose Fox News gave us Trump in the first place,' Tina Brown, the writer and former New Yorker and Vanity Fair editor, said in her Substack newsletter. Brown came of age in England when print was king. 'My bet is he won't pay Trump a dime for the Epstein story. Even at a grumpy 94, Murdoch is still a tabloid man to his core. Nothing gets his juices going more than a sex scandal that beats the competition.' There may be trouble ahead.
