USAID cuts could send global health into chaos

The Trump administration's decision to end almost all foreign aid spending from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is poised to plunge global health into chaos.
The contract terminations announced Wednesday will end grants for HIV treatments and prevention, tuberculosis, polio, malaria, Ebola and numerous other diseases and conditions. Nutrition assistance programs for infants in developing countries have also been halted, organizations said.
Nearly 5,800 projects funded by USAID have been terminated, ending the hope that contracts previously frozen might have been restarted.
'This reckless and unilateral move will cost millions of lives around the world,' said the Global Health Council, an alliance of nonprofit organizations and companies that receive U.S. foreign aid funding, in a statement.
'With the stroke of a pen, the U.S. government has gutted decades of progress in global health, development, and humanitarian aid — without due process, transparency, or good faith consideration of the consequences,' the council said.
The Global Health Council is one of the nonprofits that have challenged a freeze on foreign aid.
Shortly after taking office, the Trump administration suspended nearly all foreign assistance, saying the funds needed to undergo a 90-day review to ensure compliance with the administration's policies.
The freeze led to thousands of humanitarian workers losing their jobs and life-threatening delays in food and medicine to impoverished areas around the world.
A few days later, the State Department issued stop work orders on foreign assistance funded by or through the State Department and USAID, including existing awards. The stop-work orders came without warning, sowing immediate chaos and confusion.
The State Department then issued waivers to allow certain 'lifesaving' programs, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), to continue. But the waivers were unevenly applied, and organizations granted waivers said they still weren't being paid.
International health groups said they were under the impression the waivers would continue to apply through the 90-day review period.
'The chaos and confusion of the last four weeks we thought had reached a fever pitch but what happened [Wednesday] night takes this to a new dimension. Every project imaginable in HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, nutritional support, has now been terminated,' said Mitchell Warren, executive director of AVAC, an international nonprofit focused on HIV prevention and one of the plaintiffs in the effort to unfreeze funding.
'The only strategy the administration seems to have is to sow chaos and confusion. There's no effort to look at what aligns with foreign policy, diplomacy, partnerships. And no strategy to prepare for public health threats,' Warren said.
But on Wednesday night, the administration said it had concluded a 'a good-faith, individualized assessment' of USAID's 6,300 grants in less than a month.
'Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio has now made a final decision with respect to each award, on an individualized basis, affirmatively electing to either retain the award or terminate it pursuant to the terms of the instrument or independent legal authority as inconsistent with the national interests and foreign policy of the United States,' the administration said in a court filing.
The State Department has said the agency spared critical awards for lifesaving medical treatment, including those that had been operating under a waiver from the earlier funding freeze, but health groups say that is not the case.
For instance, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation said three of its primary USAID agreements, which had received approval to resume limited work under the State Department's waiver for lifesaving work, were terminated.
The projects supported more than 350,000 people on HIV treatment, including nearly 10,000 children and more than 10,000 HIV-positive pregnant people in Lesotho, Eswatini, and Tanzania.
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) said 46 of its USAID and State Department programs were canceled, including funding for operating nutrition assistance centers, which help severely malnourished children. Those had been operating under a waiver.
The Joint United Nations HIV/AIDS program said its U.S. government funding was also terminated.
Global health experts said the effects of the cuts will be disastrous, both in terms of health and for how the U.S. is seen throughout the rest of the world.
If a person with HIV stops taking the medication, the virus is no longer suppressed and can multiply, leading to weakened immune systems, illness and then potential spread to others.
For malaria, the cuts mean programs that supplied mosquito nets for cribs won't continue, which means fewer babies protected from malaria. That increases malaria infections, which then can increase deaths.
'It's just a cascading effect on almost every level that ultimately leads to more people being ill, more people dying, and ultimately more costs associated with running these programs and caring for these people,' said Jirair Ratevosian, a fellow at Duke University's Global Health Institute who worked as a chief of staff for the PEPFAR program.
'So it's counterintuitive to what we're trying to do.'
Jen Kates, a senior vice president and director of the Global Health & HIV Policy Program at KFF, said the terminations could set back years of health progress that the U.S. and others have been working toward in developing countries.
'The U.S., frankly, has been one of the main forces behind health achievements in low- and middle-income countries. So a lot of money was provided to make these gains, and they could be set back,' Kates said. 'The extent of the damage is not known yet, but I think in a lot of cases it might be hard to recover easily, even with the replacement funds at some point in the future.'
Jocelyn Wyatt, CEO of the aid group Alight, said she had to terminate programs for millions of displaced people in Sudan, Somalia and South Sudan.
Wyatt said Alight was the largest health provider in Sudan, serving 2.1 million people. They operated under a waiver during the earlier funding freeze, but this week had to close 33 health clinics in the country.
In Somalia, the group had to close 13 health centers, as well as a mobile clinic. In Sudan, it had to stop water and sanitation services and close three camps for displaced people and refugees.
'We're working in very remote regions. Humanitarian assistance was already very scarce. There were not a lot of services before, and now there's none,' Wyatt said. 'These are lifesaving services. There's no alternative, and people will die.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

WIRED

3 hours ago

• WIRED

The FDA Just Approved a Long-Lasting Injection to Prevent HIV

Jun 20, 2025 7:30 AM Clinical trials have shown that six-monthly injections of lenacapavir are almost 100 percent protective against becoming infected with HIV. But big questions remain over the drug's affordability. Photograph: Konstantin Voronov/GETTY IMAGES The US Food and Drug Administration has just approved lenacapavir, an injectable form of HIV prevention that is almost 100 percent effective and requires only two doses per year. Science magazine described the medicine the most important scientific advance of 2024. In clinical trials, lenacapavir proved to be 99.9 percent effective in preventing HIV infection through sexual transmission in people weighing more than 35 kilograms. The drug, an antiretroviral, works not by stimulating an immune response, but by blocking HIV from reproducing during its early stages—specifically, by disrupting the function of the virus's capsid protein. This happens so long as the body receives injections every six months. Lenacapavir has already been approved in some countries as a treatment for HIV in people with forms of the virus that are resistant to other treatments. However, prior to this week, its prophylactic use had not been approved anywhere, making the FDA's decision a significant new development in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The drug is not the first medicine that can be taken preemptively to protect against an HIV infection: pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) pills were already available in many countries, including the United States. But these must be taken every day, and ensuring ongoing access to these medicines, and that people actually remember to take them, is a known challenge. It's hoped the long-lasting effects of lenacapavir will make it easier for people to stay protected against the virus. According to its creator, Gilead Sciences, lenacapavir will be marketed under the trade name Yeztugo. The company has committed to manufacturing 10 million doses by 2026. 'This is a historic day in the decades-long fight against HIV. Yeztugo is one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of our time and offers a very real opportunity to help end the HIV epidemic,' Daniel O'Day, president and CEO of Gilead, said in a statement on Wednesday. However, lenacapavir's price may be a barrier to access. Yeztugo will have an annual list price of $28,218 per person in the US. Winnie Byanyima, executive director of of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), has also flagged in the past that the drug is unaffordable for many people in Africa, where the medicine has the potential to have the biggest impact. Roughly two-thirds of the people living with HIV worldwide live in sub-Saharan Africa. Gilead said in a statement last year that it had been 'developing a strategy to enable broad, sustainable access globally' to lenacapavir, although the company has not yet provided detailed information on how it will do this. One option could be 'voluntary licensing,' where other companies are granted permission to produce and sell generic versions of a patented product exclusively to people in certain (often low-income) countries. Researchers at the University of Liverpool in the UK have calculated that a year's worth of lenacapavir could be made available for as little as $25. This story originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

Axios

3 hours ago

• Axios

Axios-Ipsos poll: Americans want to force presidents to share health records

Eight in 10 Americans want legally required and publicly released cognitive tests and disease screenings for U.S. presidents — and age limits on the presidency, according to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index. About 3 in 4 say politicians aren't honest about their health, and that presidents should be legally required to share their medical records with the public. Why it matters: The issue of presidents' health has become particularly poignant in light of the decline of Joe Biden, who was 82 when he left office, and the return of Donald Trump, who's now 79 and was the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history. Trump rarely has offered glimpses into his health records. His team released a memo after his physical in April that pronounced him in "excellent health," but political foes such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom have questioned Trump's mental fitness and whether he's up to the job. Biden's White House physician had claimed that Biden was in great shape for a man of his age. But during his presidency, Biden's staff tried to conceal his declining health. Biden's recent cancer diagnosis has drawn new attention to the lack of legal requirements for public officials to disclose their medical status. What we're watching: Democrats surveyed in the poll appear to favor such disclosures slightly more than Republicans — and, overall, Americans are less interested in forcing past presidents to share their records than requiring current ones to do so. What they're saying:"The American public is sending a very clear signal that they don't trust the information they're receiving, that it's not sufficient, and that public officials should be held to a higher standard when it comes to being forthcoming about their health," said Mallory Newall, Ipsos vice president for U.S. public affairs. "Americans want more transparency about their elected officials' health. They're looking for a younger generation to serve." The big picture: The balance between public officials' medical privacy and the public's right to know has swung sharply toward more disclosure, the poll showed. It found strong bipartisan appetite for increased transparency about public officials' health, and for a maximum age at which officeholders and Supreme Court justices can serve. (Respondents were not asked what age the maximum age should be.) By the numbers: 72% of Americans strongly or somewhat disagree with the idea that most elected officials are honest with the American public about their health. 74% overall agree that there should be a legal requirement for any current president to share their health records. The public is much more divided on former presidents' health, with just 40% agreeing there should be a legal requirement to share their health records and 57% opposed. About 8 in 10 Americans broadly favor age limits for Supreme Court justices and members of Congress, as well as for presidents. More Democrats (83%) favor a legal requirement that the current president share health records than Republicans (70%) or independents (72%). The same goes for age limits and for mandatory cognitive screening and disease testing with sharable results. But in each case, more than three-quarters of Republicans, Democrats and independents support those requirements. Between the lines: Public officials aren't held to any legal standards for disclosing their medical status. While America is getting older and life expectancies generally have increased, questions about aging politicians' fitness to serve and their ability to make critical judgements have moved to the forefront. That's partly driven by a nonstop news cycle that keeps many in the limelight and can expose frailties. But the rules for talking about their health are mostly rooted in traditions like the president's annual physical. Former White House physician Jeffrey Kuhlman has argued for a battery of cognitive tests, rather than a screening exam, to assess presidents' memory, language and problem-solving skills. Methodology: This Axios/Ipsos Poll was conducted June 13-16, 2025, by Ipsos' KnowledgePanel®. This poll is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 1,104 general population adults age 18 or older.

Washington Post

7 hours ago

• Washington Post

In Uganda, a tougher bicycle offers hope for better health coverage in rural areas

LIRA, Uganda — The bicycle parked in Lucy Abalo's compound doesn't belong to her. Any one of the hundreds of people in her village can show up and ask to use it. A man might wish to take his pregnant wife for a checkup. A woman might need transport to pick up HIV medication. An injured child might need a trip to a hospital.