USAID cuts shutter India's first clinic for transgender people
India's first medical clinic for transgender people has shut operations in three cities after US President Donald Trump stopped foreign aid to it.
Mitr (friend) Clinic, which was started in 2021 in the southern city of Hyderabad, offered HIV treatment, gender affirming support and counselling services to thousands of transgender people.
Two more Mitr Clinics in Thane and Pune cities in western India, which were established the same year, have also shut down due to the aid cut.
In January, Trump signed an executive order pausing all foreign aid for 90 days, pending a review.
Trump has said he wants overseas spending to be closely aligned with his "America First" approach.
His crackdown on USAID, the US agency overseeing humanitarian aid to foreign countries since the 1960s, has been seen as a step to this end.
The pausing of USAID funds has affected dozens of development programmes all around the world, especially in poor and developing countries.
In India, the shutting down of the Mitr Clinics has impacted the transgender community's access to crucial medical support.
The project came into existence under the US President's agency for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003 when George Bush was president. John Hopkins University worked in collaboration with USAID and the Indian government to set it up.
A staff member who spoke on condition of anonymity to BBC Hindi said the three clinics catered to some 6,000 people and about 6% to 8% of the patients were being treated for HIV.
"All these cases were below 30 years of age. And 75% to 80% of this population was accessing health services for the first time," this staff member said.
In Hyderabad, the Mitr Clinic offered care to 150 to 200 transgender patients each month, many of whom suffered from HIV. The clinic had a small team of doctors, psychologists and technical staff.
"We were receiving 250,000 rupees ($2900; £2300) every month to provide services," Rachana Mudraboyina, a transwoman who was in-charge of the clinic, told BBC Hindi.
The news of the clinic's closure has come as a blow to the community.
Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, a transwoman who has visited the clinic, told The Indian Express newspaper that she was "devastated" by the news as the clinic used to offer treatment at subsidised rates.
Another transwoman, who was hoping to avail of the clinic's gender affirming services, told the Express that she was sad that she would no longer be able to do this.
India is estimated to have around two million transgender people, though activists say the number is higher. Despite a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that gives them the same rights as people of other genders, many still struggle to access education and healthcare due to stigma and discrimination.
There are state-run and private hospitals that offer medical help to the community, but many say they prefer going to Mitr Clinics because they find it more affordable and inclusive.
"Transgender people are not treated properly in general hospitals," Rachana says, explaining why the Mitr Clinics were so important for the community.
Trump's order freezing foreign aid has been criticised by many.
"USAID has made significant contributions in health and education and shutting it down is bound to have an impact on developing countries," Bubberjung Venkatesh, a lawyer, told BBC Hindi.
"It's a big blow. Its support for HIV prevention was significant," he added.
Last Thursday, the Trump administration said it was going to eliminate more than 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts. This means that very few projects will survive and the Mitr Clinics are unlikely to be among them.
Elon Musk, a close aide of Trump who also heads a government department in charge of slashing federal spending and jobs, has criticised funding projects for transgender people.
"That's what American tax dollars were funding," Musk said in a post on X (formerly Twitter) on Friday in response to a post about the closure of the Mitr Clinics.
Meanwhile, staff at the clinic say they are looking for funding from other sources and hope that the state government will step in to help.
"We did a lot more than just provide medical help. The clinic also provided us a space to interact with the community, to share advice about various government schemes and health facilities," Rachana says.
"We want to continue [running the clinic] and are trying our best to find donors," she adds.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
An Uproar at the NIH
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Updated at 10:26 a.m. on June 9, 2025 Since winning President Donald Trump's nomination to serve as the director of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya—a health economist and prominent COVID contrarian who advocated for reopening society in the early months of the pandemic—has pledged himself to a culture of dissent. 'Dissent is the very essence of science,' Bhattacharya said at his confirmation hearing in March. 'I'll foster a culture where NIH leadership will actively encourage different perspectives and create an environment where scientists, including early-career scientists and scientists that disagree with me, can express disagreement, respectfully.' Two months into his tenure at the agency, hundreds of NIH officials are taking Bhattacharya at his word. More than 300 officials, from across all of the NIH's 27 institutes and centers, have signed and sent a letter to Bhattacharya that condemns the changes that have thrown the agency into chaos in recent months—and calls on their director to reverse some of the most damaging shifts. Since January, the agency has been forced by Trump officials to fire thousands of its workers and rescind or withhold funding from thousands of research projects. Tomorrow, Bhattacharya is set to appear before a Senate appropriations subcommittee to discuss a proposed $18 billion slash to the NIH budget—about 40 percent of the agency's current allocation. The letter, titled the Bethesda Declaration (a reference to the NIH's location in Bethesda, Maryland), is modeled after the Great Barrington Declaration, an open letter published by Bhattacharya and two of his colleagues in October 2020 that criticized 'the prevailing COVID-19 policies' and argued that it was safe—even beneficial—for most people to resume life as normal. The approach that the Great Barrington Declaration laid out was, at the time, widely denounced by public-health experts, including the World Health Organization and then–NIH director Francis Collins, as dangerous and scientifically unsound. The allusion in the NIH letter, officials told me, isn't meant glibly: 'We hoped he might see himself in us as we were putting those concerns forward,' Jenna Norton, a program director at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and one of the letter's organizers, told me. None of the NIH officials I spoke with for this story could recall another time in their agency's history when staff have spoken out so publicly against a director. But none of them could recall, either, ever seeing the NIH so aggressively jolted away from its core mission. 'It was time enough for us to speak out,' Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the National Cancer Institute, who has signed her name to the letter, told me. To preserve American research, government scientists—typically focused on scrutinizing and funding the projects most likely to advance the public's health—are now instead trying to persuade their agency's director to help them win a political fight with the White House. In an emailed statement, Bhattacharya said, 'The Bethesda Declaration has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months, including the continuing support of the NIH for international collaboration. Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive. We all want the NIH to succeed.' A spokesperson for HHS also defended the policies the letter critiqued, arguing that the NIH is 'working to remove ideological influence from the scientific process' and 'enhancing the transparency, rigor, and reproducibility of NIH-funded research.' The agency spends most of its nearly $48 billion budget powering science: It is the world's single-largest public funder of biomedical research. But since January, the NIH has canceled thousands of grants—originally awarded on the basis of merit—for political reasons: supporting DEI programming, having ties to universities that the administration has accused of anti-Semitism, sending resources to research initiatives in other countries, advancing scientific fields that Trump officials have deemed wasteful. Prior to 2025, grant cancellations were virtually unheard-of. But one official at the agency, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of professional repercussions, told me that staff there now spend nearly as much time terminating grants as awarding them. And the few prominent projects that the agency has since been directed to fund appear either to be geared toward confirming the administration's biases on specific health conditions, or to benefit NIH leaders. 'We're just becoming a weapon of the state,' another official, who signed their name anonymously to the letter, told me. 'They're using grants as a lever to punish institutions and academia, and to censor and stifle science.' NIH officials have tried to voice their concerns in other ways. At internal meetings, leaders of the agency's institutes and centers have questioned major grant-making policy shifts. Some prominent officials have resigned. Current and former NIH staffers have been holding weekly vigils in Bethesda, commemorating, in the words of the organizers, 'the lives and knowledge lost through NIH cuts.' (Attendees are encouraged to wear black.) But these efforts have done little to slow the torrent of changes at the agency. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow at the NIH and one of the letter's signers, told me that the NIH fellows union, which he is part of, has sent Bhattacharya repeated requests to engage in discussion since his first week at the NIH. 'All of those have been ignored,' Morgan said. By formalizing their objections and signing their names to them, officials told me, they hope that Bhattacharya will finally feel compelled to respond. (To add to the public pressure, Jeremy Berg, who led the NIH's National Institute of General Medical Sciences until 2011, is also organizing a public letter of support for the Bethesda Declaration, in partnership with Stand Up for Science, which has organized rallies in support of research.) Scientists elsewhere at HHS, which oversees the NIH, have become unusually public in defying political leadership, too. Last month, after Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—in a bizarre departure from precedent—announced on social media that he was sidestepping his own agency, the CDC, and purging COVID shots from the childhood-immunization schedule, CDC officials chose to retain the vaccines in their recommendations, under the condition of shared decision making with a health-care provider. Many signers of the Bethesda letter are hopeful that Bhattacharya, 'as a scientist, has some of the same values as us,' Benjamin Feldman, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, told me. Perhaps, with his academic credentials and commitment to evidence, he'll be willing to aid in the pushback against the administration's overall attacks on science, and defend the agency's ability to power research. But other officials I spoke with weren't so optimistic. Many at the NIH now feel they work in a 'culture of fear,' Norton said. Since January, NIH officials have told me that they have been screamed at and bullied by HHS personnel pushing for policy changes; some of the NIH leaders who have been most outspoken against leadership have also been forcibly reassigned to irrelevant positions. At one point, Norton said, after she fought for a program focused on researcher diversity, some members of NIH leadership came to her office and cautioned her that they didn't want to see her on the next list of mass firings. (In conversations with me, all of the named officials I spoke with emphasized that they were speaking in their personal capacity, and not for the NIH.) Bhattacharya, who took over only two months ago, hasn't been the Trump appointee driving most of the decisions affecting the NIH—and therefore might not have the power to reverse or overrule them. HHS officials have pressured agency leadership to defy court orders, as I've reported; mass cullings of grants have been overseen by DOGE. And as much as Bhattacharya might welcome dissent, he so far seems unmoved by it. In early May, Berg emailed Bhattacharya to express alarm over the NIH's severe slowdown in grant making, and to remind him of his responsibilities as director to responsibly shepherd the funds Congress had appropriated to the agency. The next morning, according to the exchange shared with me by Berg, Bhattacharya replied saying that, 'contrary to the assertion you make in the letter,' his job was to ensure that the NIH's money would be spent on projects that advance American health, rather than 'on ideological boondoggles and on dangerous research.' And at a recent NIH town hall, Bhattacharya dismissed one staffer's concerns that the Trump administration was purging the identifying variable of gender from scientific research. (Years of evidence back its use.) He echoed, instead, the Trump talking point that 'sex is a very cleanly defined variable,' and argued that gender shouldn't be included as 'a routine question in order to make an ideological point.' The officials I spoke with had few clear plans for what to do if their letter goes unheeded by leadership. Inside the agency, most see few levers left to pull. At the town hall, Bhattacharya also endorsed the highly contentious notion that human research started the pandemic—and noted that NIH-funded science, specifically, might have been to blame. When dozens of staffers stood and left the auditorium in protest, prompting applause that interrupted Bhattacharya, he simply smiled. 'It's nice to have free speech,' he said, before carrying right on. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
VA Marks Benefits Milestone For Veterans
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has announced that its mobile app has now accumulated more than 3 million downloads since its launch in 2021. The Health and Benefits app, which has 1.4 million active users, provides veterans access to information on health care and benefits. It allows users to refill and track VA prescriptions, review appointments, review claims and appeals status, submit evidence for claims and appeals, review VA payment and direct deposit information, locate the closest VA facilities, access the Veterans Crisis Line and show proof of Veteran status. VA Acting Assistant Secretary for Information and Technology and Acting Chief Information Officer Eddie Pool said: "VA's Health and Benefits app gives Veterans fast and convenient access to a host of important information, from appointments to prescriptions and benefits. We encourage all VA-enrolled Veterans to stay connected and informed by downloading the app." This story will be updated. Related Articles How Veteran's Benefits Are Impacted by Trump's Tax Bill: What to KnowHegseth Joins Veterans in Normandy to Mark 81st Anniversary of D-DayList of Cities Hosting 50501 Protests on June 6Harvey Milk Navy Ship To Be Renamed-Vets Call It 'Insult to LGBTQ Troops' 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Is Rubio's PEPFAR claim ‘made up'?
Presented by With Carmen Paun and Robert King Driving the day SHOW ME THE MONEY — Democrats are sparring with Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the HIV and AIDS program credited with saving millions of lives in poor countries, Carmen, Amanda Friedman and Robert report. President Donald Trump shut down the agency that signed off on most PEPFAR spending and fired staffers who supported it. Democrats say the administration is lying about the state of the program following massive foreign aid cuts led by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency. Rubio has suggested those concerns are overblown, considering that PEPFAR remains '85 percent operative,' a claim that he made repeatedly in budget testimony before Congress. But neither Rubio nor the State Department will provide a detailed accounting to back up the figure. Dems say: 'It's made up,' Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz said when asked by POLITICO about the 85 percent figure. 'It's the most successful, bipartisan, highly efficient life-saving thing that the United States has ever done, and Elon Musk went in and trashed it.' Schatz confronted Rubio about the cuts at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in May, telling him: 'You are required to spend 100 percent of the money.' Rubio's retort: Rubio said the 15 percent cut targeted programs that weren't delivering the services the government was paying for. He pointed to fraud in Namibia and armed conflict in Sudan as reasons for slashed funding, although it isn't clear those instances were related to PEPFAR. Asked repeatedly by POLITICO for more clarity on what the 85 percent figure represents, a State Department spokesperson said that 'PEPFAR-funded programs that deliver HIV care and treatment or prevention of mother to child transmission services are operational for a majority of beneficiaries.' Data collection is ongoing to capture recent updates to programming, the spokesperson also said, adding: 'We expect to have updated figures later this year.' The day after his exchange with Schatz, Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he meant 85 percent of PEPFAR's beneficiaries were still getting U.S. assistance. But the goal, he said, was to pass off the work to the countries where the beneficiaries live. 'We're by far the most generous nation on Earth on foreign aid, and will continue to be by far with no other equal, including China, despite all this alarmist stuff,' he said. Big picture: For flummoxed Democrats, the tussle with Rubio indicates a broader problem: How to respond to Trump's budget requests when his administration refuses to spend the money Congress has provided. Trump last month asked Congress to cut PEPFAR's budget for next year by 40 percent. WELCOME TO MONDAY PULSE. I'm Erin Schumaker, POLITICO's National Institutes of Health reporter, filling in today for Kelly. Are you a current or former NIH employee considering a job offer abroad? Shoot me a message! Send your tips, scoops and feedback to eschumaker@ and khooper@ and follow along @erinlschumaker and @Kelhoops. Congress RACE TO FINISH MEGABILL — Senate Republicans could finalize their domestic policy megabill this week, Robert reports, finally tackling Medicaid changes. Republicans are expected to release text for the Medicaid portion of the spending package, which seeks to extend President Donald Trump's tax cuts. The megabill includes changes to Medicaid, like restrictions on eligibility, to help generate more than $700 billion in savings to pay for the tax cuts. Senate Republicans generally agree on adding work requirements, which will mandate some able-bodied beneficiaries complete 80 hours a month of work, job training or another activity. There are exemptions for pregnant women and disabled people, among others. But there are some disagreements surrounding states' ability to levy taxes on hospitals and other providers to pay for their share of Medicaid, which is funded jointly by the federal and state governments. The House version places a moratorium on new state provider taxes but leaves current ones intact. But the question is whether the moratorium will remain intact in the Senate bill, which leadership aims to pass before July 4. Insurance PUSH AGAINST MEDICARE ADVANTAGE CHANGES — A key insurer-backed advocacy group is trying to block Senate Republicans from changing the popular Medicare Advantage program to find savings for their domestic policy megabill, Robert reports. The Better Medicare Alliance, which includes insurers among its members and advocates for Medicare Advantage, is running ads in the Washington Reporter calling for Republicans to protect the program that enables older Americans to buy private insurance plans offering benefits not covered by traditional Medicare, like dental. The group said it will also share polling data with lawmakers that shows older Americans overwhelmingly oppose the changes being discussed. 'Cutting Medicare Advantage, and particularly in-home care, would break a promise to millions of seniors who rely on it,' said Mary Beth Donahue, president and CEO of the Better Medicare Alliance. Last week, Senate Republicans weighed whether to add a bill co-sponsored by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) to the larger package, which seeks to extend President Donald Trump's tax cuts. The legislation, called the No UPCODE Act, clamps down on tools Medicare Advantage plans use to generate higher payments from the federal government. Cassidy pushed back on the attacks from the insurance industry and Democrats who said the legislation cuts benefits. 'We're taking care of patients and we're trying to rescue the program,' he said in a statement. 'To say the No UPCODE Act has bipartisan support is an understatement. This addresses an issue both Republicans and Democrats have called waste, fraud and abuse.' Merkley said in a statement that he still supports the legislation but that it should be considered 'through regular order, not in the context of a partisan bill that will end up leaving 16 million people without healthcare.' The House did consider adding similar language to its bill but eventually backed off. AROUND THE AGENCIES NIH BUDGET TALKS — NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya will testify tomorrow on the agency's budget proposal, which calls for a 40 percent funding cut. The hearing before the Senate Appropriations Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee comes amid widespread discontent at the NIH. Last month, members of the NIH fellows union walked out of a town hall Bhattacharya held in protest of cuts to programs, layoffs and funding uncertainty. While Congress will ultimately decide how much money the agency gets, and could restrict how it's dispersed, we'll be watching for how Bhattacharya defends: — The indirect cost rate cap. The budget plan proposes capping at 15 percent the rate the NIH pays for administrative and facilities costs to grantees. But lawmakers, including Republicans, have criticized indirect cost caps, which the NIH first tried to impose in February. A federal court blocked that move, and the administration has appealed. Notably, the NIH budget proposal also asks Congress to stop restricting how the NIH sets indirect cost rates. — Downsizing the NIH. The budget plan suggests consolidating the agency's 27 institutes and centers into an eight-institute structure, eliminating the National Institute of Nursing Research, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities and the Fogarty International Center, which promotes collaboration with foreign researchers. — Spending this year's budget. While Tuesday's hearing is about the 2026 budget, Bhattacharya is likely to be questioned about this year's budget, too. During a May 29 meeting with disease advocacy organizations, Bhattacharya promised to fully utilize the NIH's fiscal 2025 budget. But with billions of dollars in grants terminated or delayed since Trump was inaugurated, researchers and NIH staffers worry the 2025 budget won't get spent before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Juan Perez Jr. reports on how President Donald Trump has universities in the bind the right has long wanted. Reuters' P.J. Huffstutter reports on how the Trump administration's aid cuts are straining food banks in Ohio. The Washington Post's Erin Blakemore reports on new research that could explain why the human brain has such large storage capacity.
