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
4 hours ago
- Irish Times
How the EU succumbed to Trump's tariff steamroller
The path to the EU's capitulation to Donald Trump's trade blitz was set on April 10th. The sweeping 'liberation day' tariffs that the US president had inflicted on most of the world earlier that month had sent financial markets into a tailspin as investors dumped US assets over recession fears. With the sell-off intensifying, Trump blinked and on April 9th dropped the tariffs to 10 per cent. But Brussels blinked too. On April 10th it suspended its retaliatory tariffs and accepted the US offer of talks with a knife at its throat: 10 per cent tariffs on most of its trade, along with higher levies on steel, aluminium and vehicles. Rather than join Canada and China with instant retaliation and inflict pain on US consumers and businesses, the EU – hamstrung by divergent views among its member states – chose to take the pain in the hope of securing a better deal. READ MORE Under the framework deal struck by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and Trump at his Turnberry golf resort on Sunday, the EU has swallowed a broad-based 'baseline' US tariff of 15 per cent, including crucially for cars, but not for steel, which will be subject to a quota system. Relief among policymakers about avoiding an immediate transatlantic trade war was tinged with regret: could the EU, the world's largest trading bloc and supposedly an economic heavyweight, have extracted better terms had it not pulled its punches early on? 'He's the bully in the schoolyard and we didn't join others in standing up to him,' said one diplomat. 'Those who don't hang together get hanged separately.' Georg Riekeles, a former commission official who helped negotiate the UK's exit from the bloc, said the EU's most recent threat to apply €93 billion of retaliatory tariffs against US goods came far too late. 'With the benefit of hindsight, the EU would have been better off answering the US vigorously in April in a one-two combo with China's retaliation against the US tariff hikes, which left markets and Trump reeling,' said Riekeles, now at the European Policy Centre think-tank. Trump views the EU as a parasite, feeding off the lucrative US market while closing its own through regulation and standards. The US president has said the union was 'formed to screw the US' and 'nastier than China'. The EU's response to his return to power in January was flat-footed. Months of planning beforehand by a dedicated team, which included senior trade officials led by another Brexit talks veteran Sabine Weyand and von der Leyen's trade adviser Tomas Baert, went up in smoke. They had drawn up a three-point plan modelled on the approach taken in Trump's first term: offer to reduce the near €200 billion goods trade deficit by buying more liquefied natural gas, weapons and agricultural products. Second, offer mutual tariff reductions on each other's goods. If that failed, they would prepare retaliation and rely on a market response to a possible trade war, or increasing inflation in the US, to force Trump to back down. But Trump moved faster than expected and by March had levied 25 per cent tariffs on steel, aluminium and cars. At a meeting in Luxembourg that month, many trade ministers were on the war path. Germany, France and a few others pushed for the commission to consult on using its new 'trade bazooka', the anti-coercion instrument. Designed after Trump's first term to counter trade policy being used to pressure governments over other matters, it would allow Brussels to bar US companies from public tenders, revoke intellectual property protection and restrict imports and exports. However, it was not clear a majority of member states agreed with the threatening move, diplomats said. Weyand told EU ambassadors, who met at least weekly to discuss progress, to show 'strategic patience'. When the UK struck a trade deal with Washington in May, accepting Trump's 10 per cent baseline tariff, it encouraged those EU member states seeking a settlement, especially Berlin. Meanwhile, a severe tit-for-tat escalation between the US and China ended in partial détente, easing investor fears of global trade turmoil. Stock markets reached record highs, despite the large tariff increases and continued uncertainty unleashed by Trump. Italy's prime minister Giorgia Meloni and German chancellor Friedrich Merz for months held on to the EU's early offer to drop all industrial tariffs if the US did the same, even though Washington had long made clear it wanted unilateral concessions. Berlin was preoccupied with obtaining a complicated 'offset' scheme to provide tariff relief for European – in practice German – car companies that manufactured and exported from the US. While EU technocrats were boxing under Queensberry rules, Trump was in a New York street fight. Maroš Šefčovič, the EU's avuncular trade commissioner, was dispatched to Washington seven times to propose areas of agreement, deliver homilies on the importance of the transatlantic relationship and promote Germany's car offset scheme. In total, Šefčovič held more than 100 hours of frustrating talks with his US counterparts. A deal for a permanent 10 per cent 'reciprocal' tariff, hatched in July with US trade representative Jamieson Greer and commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, was flatly rejected by Trump, who instead threatened to raise levies on the EU to 30 per cent, rather than 20 per cent, from August. And his threats had worked before. The retaliatory package the EU paused in April had been reduced from €26 billion to €21 billion after lobbying by France, Ireland and Italy to ensure bourbon was removed from the list, after Trump threatened to hit European distillers in return. If everything member states requested had been removed, only €9 billion of goods would have been left on the list, officials told the Financial Times. Over the months of talks, Šefčovič's phone rang regularly with ministers urging caution. Minister for Trade Simon Harris was a frequent caller. He wanted to save Ireland's pharmaceutical, spirits and beef industry from any US counterpunch and let the world – not least the Americans – know with frequent social media posts. Business leaders also called loudly for restraint, preferring to accept a cut to profit margins than risk punitive tariffs that would hit sales. A second package of retaliatory tariffs on the US was also cut to €72 billion before finally being approved on July 24th to be used if talks collapsed, bringing the total to €93 billion. The months-long uncertainty over the direction of negotiations has also exposed divisions inside the commission itself. Weyand, the steely expert whose hardball approach to Brexit often outfoxed her UK counterparts, has consistently argued for a stronger stance towards Trump and the use of the EU's retaliation tools, in opposition to the more dovish von der Leyen, multiple diplomats and officials told the FT. The French government, notwithstanding its attempts to shield French business from retaliation, has also repeatedly called for a more muscular commission approach to Trump's tariffs. But the commission president and her close aides argued that the potential damage from additional Trump measures – including threats to impose specific tariffs on critical sectors such as EU pharmaceuticals – meant the risk of a spiralling trade war was too great. There was also concern that a more confrontational stance towards Washington could spill over into other areas. Europe's dependency on America's security guarantee was a further argument against trade confrontation, especially for the bloc's eastern and northern members. Fears that Trump would cut off weapons supplies to Ukraine, pull troops out of Europe or even quit Nato overshadowed the talks, diplomats said. A further priority for the commission president was to preserve the EU's right to regulate. The US tech industry has pushed hard for Trump to pressure the EU to weaken laws regulating online speech and data management. They also opposed national digital taxes. So far von der Leyen has refused to compromise on those issues. 'Some in the commission's trade directorate viewed this as a classical trade dispute and were pushing for retaliation, but von der Leyen had to consider the bigger picture which drove her caution and risk aversion,' said Mujtaba Rahman, Europe managing director at Eurasia Group, the risk consultancy. After Trump rebuffed the deal hatched by his own officials, the commission's negotiating team concluded they had no option but to accept a US tariff of 15 per cent. They pitched the number to member state ambassadors this week. Officials will try to present it as a status quo deal, since the 15 per cent theoretically includes the pre-existing average US tariff of 4.8 per cent. In fact, on a trade weighted basis, the pre-existing US tariff on imports from the EU was only 1.6 per cent. There is no hiding the fact the EU was rolled over by the Trump juggernaut, said one ambassador. 'Trump worked out exactly where our pain threshold is.' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Trump, Starmer to meet in Scotland, with trade and Gaza on agenda
US president Donald Trump will host British prime minister Keir Starmer at his golf resort in western Scotland on Monday for talks expected to range from their recent trade deal to the worsening hunger crisis in Gaza , the two governments said. Mr Trump, boosted by the announcement of a trade agreement with the European Union late on Sunday, said he expected Mr Starmer would also be pleased. 'The prime minister of the UK, while he's not involved in this, will be very happy because you know, there's a certain unity that's been brought there, too,' Mr Trump said. 'He's going to be very happy to see what we did.' Mr Starmer had hoped to negotiate a drop in US steel and aluminum tariffs as part of the discussions, but Mr Trump on Sunday ruled out any changes in the 50 per cent duties for the EU and has said the trade deal with Britain has been 'concluded.' The two men are expected to travel from Mr Trump's golf resort in Turnberry, on Scotland's west coast, to a second sprawling estate owned by Mr Trump in the east, near Aberdeen. Mr Starmer was heading to Scotland from Switzerland, where England won the Women's European Championship final on Sunday. Casting a shadow over their visit has been the deepening crisis in the war-torn Gaza enclave, where images of starving Palestinians have alarmed the world. Mr Starmer has recalled his ministers from their summer recess for a cabinet meeting, a UK government source said on Sunday, most likely to discuss the situation in Gaza as pressure grows at home and abroad to recognise a Palestinian state. The British leader on Friday said his country would recognise a Palestinian state only as part of a negotiated peace deal, disappointing many in his Labour Party who want him to follow France in taking swifter action. Mr Trump on Friday dismissed French president Emmanuel Macron's plan to recognise a Palestinian state, an intention that also drew strong condemnation from Israel, after similar moves from Spain, Norway and Ireland last year. Mr Trump said he understood Mr Starmer wanted to discuss Israel, adding that while the US would increase its aid to Gaza, it wanted others to join the effort. Ukraine will also be on the agenda. Dozens of Gazans have died of malnutrition in recent weeks, according to the Gaza Health Ministry in the Hamas-run enclave, with aid groups warning of mass hunger among Gaza's 2.2 million people. The war began on October 7th, 2023, when Hamas -led fighters stormed southern Israel, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 hostages back to Gaza, according to Israeli tallies. Since then, Israel's offensive has killed nearly 60,000 people in Gaza, mostly civilians, according to Gaza health officials. It has reduced much of the enclave to ruins and displaced nearly the entire population. - Reuters (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2025
Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Drugs like Ozempic aren't changing negative narratives around diet and weight
Friends keep asking me what I think about Ozempic . I know they're asking because I've written about food history, gender and eating disorders, but until recently I wasn't sure what I thought, wasn't sure that someone who has never had metabolic disease or lived in a body that attracted comment had any business having opinions about the drugs called GLP1 agonists. I support any development that undermines the idea that bodyweight has a moral aspect, or that individuals control the size of their bodies. We are shaped in every way by environment, society and genetics far more than by the small scope of personal choice within those determinants. Health is mostly determined by heredity and wealth. So if the new drugs stop people insisting that self-discipline and self-starvation are the answer to fatness, all to the good. [ Sarah Moss: 'I'm a classic first child. A driven overachiever. Slightly neurotic' Opens in new window ] But I'm not sure they're generally helping us live better lives. I gather GLP1 agonists are good as diabetes medication – not an area in which I am qualified to opine. Their rising use for other purposes seems to be correlated to increasing media excitement about extreme thinness, particularly in women, which is demoralising to those of us who grew up with heroin chic and the worship of emaciation and have lived in the shadow of those ideals ever since. If the drugs are changing narratives about diet and weight, I'm not seeing it. There's no decline in mindless writing about and advertising of 'guilt-free' foods and 'guilty pleasures'. (What you put in your mouth has no bearing on your moral worth. The only sinful foods are those harmfully produced.) READ MORE I understand that these medications work by depriving people of pleasure in eating. I'd argue that pleasure is politically and ideologically important as well as nice, that without pleasure we fall prey to the idea that life is nothing but scarcity and survival, which leads quickly to the idea that life is a competition and weakness is failure, at which point you're well down the road to dark places we don't need to go. Taking expensive drugs to make daily life less fun so you take up less space doesn't sound to me like the kind of choice made by happy people in a functional society, though you could argue that unhappy people in a dysfunctional society – for example, fat people hoping to be paid, promoted and desired as much as their thinner colleagues in Europe today – might perfectly sensibly make such decisions. Getting thin to succeed in a fat-phobic society is still an understandable individual solution to a structural problem. And it seems to me that the big structural problem here is not that people are fat but that we have created and continue to promote a food system that makes most consumers unwell, and are now creating and promoting a regime of medication that, at great financial and personal cost, claims to counteract the effects of that food system. We're all being sold ultra-processed, intensively farmed food that makes us and our planet sick, and then being sold drugs that moderate the effect of that food on individual bodies but compound the harm to the environment. I am certain that the same shareholders profit from the manufacture and sale of the food that causes the problem and the drugs that treat it. Ozempic's popularity is a symptom and driver of social and economic injustice, and I wish we could spend some of its cost on systemic change instead None of which means that I blame any individual for making whatever decisions seem necessary to cope. I only note that the troubles that show up in our bodies rarely began there, and therefore the sustainable solutions won't begin with injections. There are countries that have been able to reduce the proportions of intensively produced and processed foods consumed by their populations, especially by children. There are examples of local, regional and national governments creating and sometimes imposing healthier and more sustainable environments, but it can't happen without at least some popular demand, and the established interests and beneficiaries of harmful systems will never want such change. So what I think about Ozempic is that its popularity is a symptom and driver of social and economic injustice, and I wish we could spend some of its cost on systemic change instead. We could subsidise the production and transport of a lot of fresh local produce and build a lot of playgrounds, sports facilities and bike lanes for what we lose paying pharmaceutical companies to heal us from their absence. And it would be much more fun.
