After U.S. cuts billions, East African countries steps up to plug budget gaps
Finance ministers across East Africa have increased health spending following U.S. President Donald Trump's sudden withdrawal of billions of dollars in aid earlier this year.
East African finance ministers have increased health expenditure due to a significant withdrawal of U.S. aid.
Uganda announced an allocation of $32 million for antiretroviral medication to address the issue.
Tanzania committed $31.8 million to cover immediate funding gaps resulting from aid withdrawal.
Finance ministers across East Africa have increased health spending following U.S. President Donald Trump's sudden withdrawal of billions of dollars in aid earlier this year.
The move, along with his protectionist policies that sparked tit-for-tat trade wars, sent shockwaves around the world, but nowhere has the impact been more deeply felt than in Africa.
Already, tens of thousands of healthcare workers across the continent have lost their jobs. And for many of the 17 million Africans living with HIV, two-thirds of all cases globally, access to life-saving treatment is now slipping out of reach, according to Bloomberg.
Sub-Saharan Africa remains at the heart of the global HIV crisis. According to Statista, millions across the region live with the virus, with thousands more newly infected each year, a stark reminder of the urgent need for sustained support and investment.
Emergency budget plans
Health advocates like Vincent Bagambe, Planning Director at the Uganda AIDS Commission, have raised the alarm that without swift action, recent funding cuts could undermine years of progress in reducing new HIV infections and curbing AIDS-related deaths.
In response, Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya announced new plans in their 2025–26 budgets, delivered on Thursday, to fill the growing funding gap. The U.S. had allocated $200 million in aid for these countries this year, support that has now been withdrawn.
Uganda, often praised as one of Africa's success stories in tackling HIV and AIDS, is stepping up its response. The country plans to spend an additional 116.8 billion shillings ($32 million) on antiretroviral medication, Finance Minister Matia Kasaija announced.
Uganda currently has about 1.5 million people living with HIV, with a national prevalence rate of 5.1%, according to the Uganda AIDS Commission. In 2024, it received $194 million in HIV/AIDS assistance from the United States, the fifth-highest allocation globally, according to Statista.
Next door in Tanzania, which received $166 million in U.S. HIV/AIDS assistance in 2024, the government has already disbursed over 82 billion shillings ($31.8 million) to help cover funding shortfalls caused by the abrupt withdrawal, according to Finance Minister Mwigulu Nchemba.
Kenya, East Africa's biggest economy and a recipient of $187 million in U.S. aid, is also responding. Treasury Secretary John Mbadi announced plans to allocate 17.3 billion shillings ($134 million) to the Global Fund, which supports efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Another 4.6 billion shillings will go toward vaccines and immunization programs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Administration to phase out NIH support of HIV clinical guidelines
The National Institutes of Health's support for federal guidelines that steer the treatment of more than a million HIV patients in the United States will be phased out by next June, according to the agency's Office of AIDS Research, a move that troubled some doctors and raised questions about whether the guidelines themselves will change. It is unclear whether Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to bring the guidance in line with his own controversial views about an infectious disease that 30 years ago was the leading cause of death for people 25 to 44 years old. The Office of AIDS Research, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, informed members of the panels responsible for the guidelines in a letter that, 'in the climate of budget decreases and revised priorities, OAR is beginning to explore options to transfer management of the guidelines to another agency within' HHS. The guidelines, detailed recommendations on how to diagnose and treat medical conditions, can affect what tests, treatments and medications are covered by insurance companies and Medicare, said Aniruddha Hazra, associate professor of medicine at University of Chicago Medicine. The lack of clarity in the letter caused some in the medical community to worry that switching oversight of the guidelines to another branch of HHS could be a first step by the Trump administration toward more drastic changes in the government's treatment recommendations. 'From a practical standpoint, it's monumental,' Hazra said of the news about the guidelines, which he called the basis for much of the knowledge about HIV. 'The loss of this kind of federal guidance throws everything into the dark,' he said. Hazra described the guidelines as a dynamic document that changes at least once or twice a year as new studies and scientific evidence come to light. Guidelines for HIV are divided into a half-dozen categories, including sets for adults/adolescents, pediatric patients, pregnant women and HIV patients who are displaced by natural disasters. The webpage listing the guidelines now says they are 'being updated to comply with Executive Orders,' raising the question of whether sections dealing with care for transgender people with HIV may be changed or eliminated. The letter sent to panel members did not say specifically if or how the clinical practice guidelines might change, only that 'Together, we now have an opportunity to develop a proactive, careful transition plan for each Panel.' The letter noted that 'a special session on guidelines sustainability planning' has been scheduled for Thursday with panel leadership and the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council. Officials at NIH referred questions to the Department of Health and Human Services, which did not respond to emails requesting clarification of the letter. Kennedy has long espoused controversial views about HIV, suggesting that contrary to widely held medical belief, the virus was not the cause of AIDS. In a video posted on Twitter in 2023, Kennedy tells an audience, 'A hundred percent of the people who died at first, the first thousand who had AIDS, were people who were addicted to [a class of drugs called] poppers. … They were people who were part of a gay lifestyle. They were burning the candle at both ends, and they were taking a lot of injectable drugs.' Under Kennedy, HHS has terminated hundreds of millions of dollars in HIV-related research grants. The department closed its Office of Infectious Diseases & HIV Policy that coordinated the federal response to the virus. At the same time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lost staff in its HIV prevention division who conducted studies and surveillance, ran health campaigns and supported local prevention programs. 'These guidelines serve as a reference for the world in addition to caring for people in the U.S.,' said Theodore Ruel, chief of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases and Global Health at UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, and co-chair of one of the panels responsible for the guidelines. 'It is disappointing that such a key guideline about HIV for children in the USA will no longer be supported by the NIH,' said Ruel — whose panel examines antiretroviral therapy for the medical management of children living with HIV — stressing that he was not speaking for the other panelists. 'I am concerned that we are unlikely to find a new home that can maintain the same depth, quality, access and capacity for real-time updating.' He expressed faith that the panelists would push to find a home for the guidelines where they can continue to offer 'science-driven support' for doctors and patients. James M. Sosman, medical director for UW Health's HIV Care and Prevention Program, who has been caring for people with the disease for decades, said that having the guidelines under the auspices of the Office of AIDS Research made sense. 'Would I look to move that? I'm reluctant because it's like, 'Hey, if you've got a guy that's hitting home runs at third base, don't move them to first base,'' Sosman said. 'I mean if it's working out, why are you disrupting this for costs that don't seem that great.'
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
Here's what everyone should know about this new HIV prevention shot
A twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV has the potential to greatly reduce the spread of the virus in the United States and the rest of the world, but concerns about cost and accessibility remain, health care experts said. Yeztugo (generic name lenacapavir), made by Gilead Sciences, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing, according to the non-profit animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). For many animals held captive for research, including a huge range of species from dogs, cats and hamsters to elephants, dolphins and many other species, pain is "not minimized," U.S. Department of Agriculture data shows. The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. A Morning Consult poll conducted at the end of last year found that 80 percent of the 2,205 participants either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: "The US government should commit to a plan to phase out experiments on animals." Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country, although the question remains as to whether it will be enough to spare many more animals from pain and suffering this year. Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Animal Testing In US Could Be Transformed Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva What Is The Trump Administration Doing About It? There have been various steps taken in different federal agencies to tackle the issue of animal testing since Trump was sworn in on January 20. In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was "taking a groundbreaking step to advance public health by replacing animal testing in the development of monoclonal antibody therapies and other drugs with more effective, human-relevant methods." The FDA said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients. "As we restore the agency's commitment to gold-standard science and integrity, this shift will help accelerate cures, lower drug prices, and reaffirm U.S. leadership in ethical, modern science." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it was "adopting a new initiative to expand innovative, human-based science while reducing animal use in research," in alignment with the FDA's initiative. The agency said that while "traditional animal models continue to be vital to advancing scientific knowledge," new and emerging technologies could act as alternative methods, either alone or in combination with animal models. The NIH Office of Extramural Research told Newsweek it was "committed to transparently assessing where animal use can be reduced or eliminated by transitioning to [new approach methodologies (NAMs)]." "Areas where research using animals is currently necessary represent high-priority opportunities for investment in NAMs," the agency added. It added that it will "further its efforts to coordinate agency-wide efforts to develop, validate, and scale the use of NAMs across the agency's biomedical research portfolio and facilitate interagency coordination and regulatory translation for public health protection." During Trump's first term, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a directive to "prioritize efforts to reduce animal testing and committed to reducing testing on mammals by 30 percent by 2025 and to eliminate it completely by 2035," an EPA spokesperson told Newsweek. Although, the spokesperson added: "the Biden Administration halted progress on these efforts by delaying compliance deadlines." As a member of the House, Lee Zeldin, the EPA's current administrator, co-sponsored various bills during Trump's first term regarding animal cruelty, covering issues such as phasing out animal-based testing for cosmetic products; ending taxpayer funding for painful experiments on dogs at the Department of Veteran Affairs; empowering federal law enforcement to prosecute animal abuse cases that cross state lines; and others, the spokesperson said. What The Experts Think Needs To Be Done The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. "I was pleasantly surprised and quite frankly a bit shocked to read the simultaneous announcements by the NIH and the FDA regarding a new emphasis on the use of alternatives to animals," Jeffrey Morgan, a professor of pathology and laboratory medicine at Brown University in Rhode Island, told Newsweek. Morgan, who is also the director of the Center for Alternatives to Animals in Testing at Brown University, said that both agencies are moving together in the same direction on the issue "sends a unified and very powerful message to the research and biotech communities." He added that the announcements showed "a major acknowledgement of the limitations of the use of animals in research and testing." "What is especially exciting is that the NIH announcement will encourage the entry of new investigators into the field, further accelerating innovation in alternatives with exciting impacts for both discovery and applied research across all diseases," he said. He added that the FDA announcement and its emphasis on a new regulatory science that embraces data from alternatives was "equally exciting." "The demands of this new regulatory science will likewise accelerate innovation because it will establish the much-needed regulatory framework for the rigorous evaluation of data from alternatives," he said. While the administration's initiatives to shift research away from animal testing is heading in the right direction, its policies are "overdue," Dr. Thomas Hartung, a professor in the department of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. "The animal tests for safety were introduced more than 50 years ago. There is no other area of science where we do not adapt to scientific progress," he said. Hartung added that animal "testing takes too long and is too expensive to really provide the safety consumers want." He said that running animal tests for new chemicals can cost millions and take years in some cases. "Nobody can wait that long, even if they can afford the testing costs," he said. Hartung also believes the shifts in the industry to reduce animal testing have been "coming for a while," as over the last two decades, America's opposition to animal use in medical research has been increasing. "The alignment of FDA and NIH really makes the difference now, which I think is evidence of a strong relationship of their leaderships," he said. Yet in order to make a real difference, Hartung said clear deadlines are key to show that "this is not just lip service." He also said that he thought "the transformative nature of artificial intelligence in this field is not fully acknowledged." "We also need an objective framework for change to better science, such as the evidence-based toxicology approach," he said.
