U.S. Terminates Global Health Aid Funding

[orichá]

U.S. Terminates Funding for Polio, H.I.V., Malaria and Nutrition Programs Around the World

Here are some of the 5,800 contracts the Trump administration formally canceled this week in a wave of terse emails.

By Stephanie Nolen, Feb. 27, 2025

Starting Wednesday afternoon, a wave of emails went out from the State Department in Washington around the world, landing in inboxes for refugee camps, tuberculosis clinics, polio vaccination projects and thousands of other organizations that received crucial funding from the United States for lifesaving work.

“This award is being terminated for convenience and the interest of the U.S. government,” they began.

The terse notes ended funding for some 5,800 projects that had been financed by the United States Agency for International Development, indicating that a tumultuous period when the Trump administration said it was freezing projects for ostensible review was over, and that any faint hope American assistance might continue had ended.

Many were projects that had received a waiver from the freeze because the State Department previously identified its work as essential and lifesaving.

“People will die,” said Dr. Catherine Kyobutungi, executive director of the African Population and Health Research Center, “but we will never know, because even the programs to count the dead are cut.”

The projects terminated include H.I.V. treatment programs that had served millions of people, the main malaria control programs in the worst-affected African countries and global efforts to wipe out polio.

Here are some of the projects that The New York Times has confirmed have been canceled:

* A $131 million grant to UNICEF’s polio immunization program, which paid for planning, logistics and delivery of vaccines to millions of children.

* A $90 million contract with the company Chemonics for bed nets, malaria tests and treatments that would have protected 53 million people.

* A project in the Democratic Republic of Congo that operates the only source of water for 250,000 people in camps for displaced people located in the center of the violent conflict in the east of the country.

* All of the operating costs and 10 percent of the drug budget of the Global Drug Facility, the main supply channel for tuberculosis medications, which last year provided tuberculosis treatment to nearly three million people, including 300,000 children.

* H.I.V. care and treatment projects run by the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation that were providing lifesaving medication to 350,000 people in Lesotho, Tanzania and Eswatini, including 10,000 children and 10,000 pregnant women who were receiving care so that they would not transmit the virus to their babies at birth.

* A project in Uganda to trace contacts of people with Ebola, conduct surveillance and bury those who died from the virus.

* A contract to manage and distribute $34 million worth of medical supplies in Kenya, including 2.5 million monthlong H.I.V. treatments, 750,000 H.I.V. tests, 500,000 malaria treatments, 6.5 million malaria tests and 315,000 antimalaria bed nets.

* Eighty-seven shelters that took care of 33,000 women who were victims of rape and domestic violence in South Africa.

* A project run by FHI 360 that supported community health workers’ efforts to go door-to-door seeking malnourished children in Yemen. It recently found that one in five children was critically underweight because of the country’s civil war.

* Pre- and postnatal health services for 3.9 million children and 5.7 million women in Nepal.

* A project run by Helen Keller Intl in six countries in West Africa that last year provided more than 35 million people with the medicine to prevent and treat neglected tropical diseases, such as trachoma, lymphatic filariasis, schistosomiasis and onchocerciasis.

* A project in Nigeria providing 5.6 million children and 1.7 million women with treatment for severe and acute malnutrition. The termination means 77 health facilities have completely stopped treating children with severe acute malnutrition, putting 60,000 children under the age of 5 at immediate risk of death.

* A project in Sudan that runs the only operational health clinics in one of the biggest areas of the Kordofan region, cutting off all health services.

* A project serving more than 144,000 people in Bangladesh that provided food for malnourished pregnant women and vitamin A to children.

* A program run by the aid agency PATH, called REACH Malaria, which protected more than 20 million people in 10 countries in Africa from the disease. It provided malaria drugs to children at the start of the rainy season.

* A project run by Plan International that provided drugs and other medical supplies, health care, treatment of malnutrition programming, and water and sanitation for 115,000 displaced or affected by the conflict in northern Ethiopia.

* More than $80 million for UNAIDS, the United Nations agency, which funded work to help countries improve H.I.V. treatment, including data collection and watchdog programs for service delivery.

* The President’s Malaria Initiative program called Evolve, which did mosquito control in 21 countries by methods that include spraying insecticide inside homes (protecting 12.5 million people last year) and treating breeding sites to kill larvae.

* A project providing H.I.V. and tuberculosis treatment to 46,000 people in Uganda, run by the Baylor College of Medicine Children’s Foundation, Uganda.

* Smart4TB, the main research consortium working on prevention, diagnostics and treatment for tuberculosis.

* The Demographic and Health Surveys, a data collection project in 90 countries that were crucial and sometimes the only sources of information on maternal and child health and mortality, nutrition, reproductive health and H.I.V. infections, among many other health indicators. The project was also the bedrock of budgets and planning.

Stephanie Nolen is a global health reporter for The Times. 

© 2025 The New York Times Company

[orichá]

USAID staff told to shred and burn classified documents

Kayla Epstein
BBC, New York

Staff at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have been told to shred and burn classified documents and personnel files.

The request raised alarm among employees and labour groups amid the ongoing dismantling of the agency.

Acting Executive Secretary Erica Y Carr sent an email that thanked staff for clearing out classified safes and personnel documents from a Washington DC office and told them to meet in the building's lobby for an all-day disposal event on Tuesday.

"Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes available or needs a break," her email to staff read.

Typically, documents placed in burn bags for disposal are sealed and then taken to a secure site for incineration.

The email asked staff not to overfill the burn bags and label them with the words "SECRET" and "USAID (B/IO)" - which stands for bureau, or independent office - using permanent markers.

The BBC has viewed a copy of the email, which was also reported by its US partner, CBS News. It was first reported by ProPublica.

The US State Department did not immediately return a request for comment.

It was not immediately clear if the agency had preserved copies of the documents marked for destruction.

The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), a union representing USAID staff, was aware employees had been asked to shred documents, spokesperson Nikki Gamer told the BBC.

The union said it was "alarmed" by the reports and warned that such documents "may be relevant to ongoing litigation regarding the termination of USAID employees and the cessation of USAID grants".

The Trump administration faces multiple lawsuits over its dismantling of USAID, which began shortly after Trump took office in January. Unions and other groups have challenged the administration's power to shut down an agency and freeze funds that had been established and approved by the US Congress.

AFSA noted that federal law dictates that government records must be preserved as they are "essential to transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the legal process".

The union warned that " the unlawful destruction of federal records could carry serious legal consequences for anyone directed to act in violation of the law."

Government agencies do occasionally destroy paper records of classified materials and other documents, but strict procedures govern the process.

The Federal Records Act of 1950 sets out guidelines for the proper disposal of documents and creating backup or archival records, including electronic records.

The email sent by Carr did not contain some of the details traditionally found in a records disposal request, raising concerns about procedure, experts told the BBC.

"There is no indication in this email order that any thought is being given to proper retention or even identifying which records can be destroyed and which records cannot," said Kel McClanahan, executive director of the National Security Counselors, a non-profit law firm in Washington.

Mr McClanahan filed a complaint with the National Archives and Records Administration, asking them to "take immediate measures" to stop the destruction of records.

The loss of personnel records could also cause serious complications for federal employees who need to verify or process their employment benefits.

USAID was one of the first targets of the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), which was established by the Trump administration to root out what they view as waste and fraud in the federal bureaucracy. Billionaire Elon Musk is helping lead the agency.

Musk referred to the agency as "evil" and the White House has argued that the agency's international programmes were a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars.

Over a few dramatic weeks, the agency was essentially shut down, with thousands of employees being laid off or placed on administrative leave. Many foreign service officers stationed abroad received little to no instructions for how to return home.

Many USAID staff remain on administrative leave, which allows them to receive pay but keeps their lives and careers in limbo.

The Trump administration named Secretary of State Marco Rubio the acting head of USAID in February and announced that Pete Marocco, who works at the State Department, would oversee its daily operations.

The Trump administration also ordered a temporary freeze on foreign aid that included funds distributed by USAID, which sent shockwaves through the international development community and forced some private companies and nonprofits to lay off staff.

On Monday, Rubio announced on X that the administration was cancelling "83% of the programmes at USAID."

"The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States," he wrote. The State Department would administer the roughly 1,000 remaining grants.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjw2yywy3x7o

[Spigzy]

I don't have a problem with the USA pulling this funding. Whilst Americans, like myself as a Brit, have probably happily donated to good causes and charities either at home or abroad, I don't honestly see it being something a US tax payer should have their money spent on. As a tax payer, I want to pay less tax, and then I can use that to support charities I am interested in.

If the US government took that tax money to improve the USA - again on HIV, or whatnot, for Americans, that ultimately would lead to an improvement globally as other countries can benefit from the solutions found by US scientists. Would you rather throw $100m at a university in the USA to find a cure for diseases, or $100m to an African country to treat victims?

I'd like to have faith in humanity that some of the causes you mention in your opening post would still receive funding, but via traditional charities/NGOs, I don't want to come across as a MAGA nutjob who doesn't care about the world, but as you will acknowledge from individual experience here in Cambodia, even if you were a millionaire, you cannot help everyone - and I don't think it is the USA's job to help everyone globally either.

Take a look at the USAID projects in India - a country with its own space program - if Modi can't fund women's shelters and stop open defecation in India, then how the hell is he paying to make India a space-faring nation? It isn't right.

#ChangeMyMind

[Random Dude]

I don't have a problem with the USA pulling this funding. Whilst Americans, like myself as a Brit, have probably happily donated to good causes and charities either at home or abroad, I don't honestly see it being something a US tax payer should have their money spent on. As a tax payer, I want to pay less tax, and then I can use that to support charities I am interested in.

If the US government took that tax money to improve the USA - again on HIV, or whatnot, for Americans, that ultimately would lead to an improvement globally as other countries can benefit from the solutions found by US scientists. Would you rather throw $100m at a university in the USA to find a cure for diseases, or $100m to an African country to treat victims?

I'd like to have faith in humanity that some of the causes you mention in your opening post would still receive funding, but via traditional charities/NGOs, I don't want to come across as a MAGA nutjob who doesn't care about the world, but as you will acknowledge from individual experience here in Cambodia, even if you were a millionaire, you cannot help everyone - and I don't think it is the USA's job to help everyone globally either.

Take a look at the USAID projects in India - a country with its own space program - if Modi can't fund women's shelters and stop open defecation in India, then how the hell is he paying to make India a space-faring nation? It isn't right.

#ChangeMyMind

I understand the sentiment, and don't blame anyone for preferring their money be spent on needy people at home.

I'm not arguing for or against these programs, but I do think it's worth mentioning a lot of programs like this are set up to benefit the donor country, as well as the receiving country.

Things like disease control for example, it's in everyone's interest to prevent the next pandemic. There's also the soft power aspect. When you're on the ground helping local people, they're more likely to be friendly towards you when you need a favor, access to their harbors or natural resources, information regarding local warlords or militias, somewhere to set up a military base... that type of thing.

[orichá]

Considering England, France, Germany, Spain and Portugal were responsible for screwing over the African and South American continents, I would suggest you read a few books from the other side, like Frantz Fanon's "The Wretched of the Earth", or why not try Walter Rodney's "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa"...

Enjoy your weekend... What ever happened to the brotherhood of humanity? I guess maybe all the old hippies have died, or been possessed by lesser demons? And anyone younger than boomers are just mean?

[David Gordon]

This is so good. And what an oxymoron having NGO’s being funded by USA government. That’s not non governmental - that’s a scam. The stated purpose and the actual mission of these groups are also two different things. They did more harm than good. Glad the gig is up and the scam is rugpulled.

[David Gordon]

I don't have a problem with the USA pulling this funding. Whilst Americans, like myself as a Brit, have probably happily donated to good causes and charities either at home or abroad, I don't honestly see it being something a US tax payer should have their money spent on. As a tax payer, I want to pay less tax, and then I can use that to support charities I am interested in.

If the US government took that tax money to improve the USA - again on HIV, or whatnot, for Americans, that ultimately would lead to an improvement globally as other countries can benefit from the solutions found by US scientists. Would you rather throw $100m at a university in the USA to find a cure for diseases, or $100m to an African country to treat victims?

I'd like to have faith in humanity that some of the causes you mention in your opening post would still receive funding, but via traditional charities/NGOs, I don't want to come across as a MAGA nutjob who doesn't care about the world, but as you will acknowledge from individual experience here in Cambodia, even if you were a millionaire, you cannot help everyone - and I don't think it is the USA's job to help everyone globally either.

Take a look at the USAID projects in India - a country with its own space program - if Modi can't fund women's shelters and stop open defecation in India, then how the hell is he paying to make India a space-faring nation? It isn't right.

#ChangeMyMind

I understand the sentiment, and don't blame anyone for preferring their money be spent on needy people at home.

I'm not arguing for or against these programs, but I do think it's worth mentioning a lot of programs like this are set up to benefit the donor country, as well as the receiving country.

Things like disease control for example, it's in everyone's interest to prevent the next pandemic. There's also the soft power aspect. When you're on the ground helping local people, they're more likely to be friendly towards you when you need a favor, access to their harbors or natural resources, information regarding local warlords or militias, somewhere to set up a military base... that type of thing.

that soft power was used to interfere in elections and place operative around the world - these operations were not only wasteful and ineffective they were a front. The only thing they were universally good at was laundering money and greasing palms.

[orichá]

Everything that isn't selfish and mean and isolationist is just a scam? Is that so..? Wow, am I in the dark, huh?

The puppets of plain gullibility, illiteracy and ignorance really are breeding quickly in Canada and America these days. I pity any children you lot bring into this world!

Who do you work for?

Or, are you simply another Curly getting hit by Moe, and pretending to like it?

[Random Dude]

I don't have a problem with the USA pulling this funding. Whilst Americans, like myself as a Brit, have probably happily donated to good causes and charities either at home or abroad, I don't honestly see it being something a US tax payer should have their money spent on. As a tax payer, I want to pay less tax, and then I can use that to support charities I am interested in.

If the US government took that tax money to improve the USA - again on HIV, or whatnot, for Americans, that ultimately would lead to an improvement globally as other countries can benefit from the solutions found by US scientists. Would you rather throw $100m at a university in the USA to find a cure for diseases, or $100m to an African country to treat victims?

I'd like to have faith in humanity that some of the causes you mention in your opening post would still receive funding, but via traditional charities/NGOs, I don't want to come across as a MAGA nutjob who doesn't care about the world, but as you will acknowledge from individual experience here in Cambodia, even if you were a millionaire, you cannot help everyone - and I don't think it is the USA's job to help everyone globally either.

Take a look at the USAID projects in India - a country with its own space program - if Modi can't fund women's shelters and stop open defecation in India, then how the hell is he paying to make India a space-faring nation? It isn't right.

#ChangeMyMind

I understand the sentiment, and don't blame anyone for preferring their money be spent on needy people at home.

I'm not arguing for or against these programs, but I do think it's worth mentioning a lot of programs like this are set up to benefit the donor country, as well as the receiving country.

Things like disease control for example, it's in everyone's interest to prevent the next pandemic. There's also the soft power aspect. When you're on the ground helping local people, they're more likely to be friendly towards you when you need a favor, access to their harbors or natural resources, information regarding local warlords or militias, somewhere to set up a military base... that type of thing.

that soft power was used to interfere in elections and place operative around the world - these operations were not only wasteful and ineffective they were a front. The only thing they were universally good at was laundering money and greasing palms.

As I said earlier, I'm not arguing for or against the aid programs, and I understand why people have a problem with money going to help those in other countries rather than to needy people in their own country. I do think those people often tend to have a very simplistic view of the world though, and lack the critical thinking ability to understand that it's most likely seen as an investment, rather than charity going to people they probably don't like.

There are many reasons to cultivate soft power. It's a way to build allies and trading partners, prevent new militant groups forming, and maintain stability in traditionally unstable areas. This is important when you have economic interests all over the globe and rely on those economic interests to maintain your lifestyle and position in the world. You don't get to be, or to keep your position as a superpower without having allies and influence in a lot of places around the world.

So there are those obvious benefits. Then there are the less obvious benefits.

Example: the food aid that was to go to impoverished countries was supplied by U.S farmers, without that market those farmers are in the shit financially and looking at possible bankruptcy, with all the repercussions that come from that. The food aid going to those places would have both benefited U.S. soft power and kept U.S. farming communities prosperous. A win-win situation.

Then there's military aid. People like to get outraged at all the hardware going to places like Ukraine (as an example), and the paper value of it. What doesn't get talked about is how a lot of that hardware was due to be destroyed anyway, which can be very expensive. When you donate it you get to advance or protect your interests in the area, while saving yourself the expense of disposing of it. Another win-win situation.

Yep, I'm sure there are some bad decisions made, and also some corruption involved, but that's always going to be the case. And I agree that the U.S (not only the U.S) does a lot disgusting things in a lot of countries in the name of 'freedom and democracy'. But at the same time it does keep our economies somewhat stable. The people involved in these decisions know a LOT more than you or I about what is happening on the ground in those places and how a relatively small investment pays off in the longer term.
And if it helps feed some starving villages, or prevent another pandemic I'm all for it.

Just because YOU don't understand a complex relationship, doesn't mean it's worthless.

[David Gordon]

That soft power was used to interfere in elections and place operative around the world - these operations were not only wasteful and ineffective they were a front. The only thing they were universally good at was laundering money and greasing palms.

As I said earlier, I'm not arguing for or against the aid programs, and I understand why people have a problem with money going to help those in other countries rather than to needy people in their own country. I do think those people often tend to have a very simplistic view of the world though, and lack the critical thinking ability to understand that it's most likely seen as an investment, rather than charity going to people they probably don't like.

There are many reasons to cultivate soft power. It's a way to build allies and trading partners, prevent new militant groups forming, and maintain stability in traditionally unstable areas. This is important when you have economic interests all over the globe and rely on those economic interests to maintain your lifestyle and position in the world. You don't get to be, or to keep your position as a superpower without having allies and influence in a lot of places around the world.

So there are those obvious benefits. Then there are the less obvious benefits.

Example: the food aid that was to go to impoverished countries was supplied by U.S farmers, without that market those farmers are in the shit financially and looking at possible bankruptcy, with all the repercussions that come from that. The food aid going to those places would have both benefited U.S. soft power and kept U.S. farming communities prosperous. A win-win situation.

Then there's military aid. People like to get outraged at all the hardware going to places like Ukraine (as an example), and the paper value of it. What doesn't get talked about is how a lot of that hardware was due to be destroyed anyway, which can be very expensive. When you donate it you get to advance or protect your interests in the area, while saving yourself the expense of disposing of it. Another win-win situation.

Yep, I'm sure there are some bad decisions made, and also some corruption involved, but that's always going to be the case. And I agree that the U.S (not only the U.S) does a lot disgusting things in a lot of countries in the name of 'freedom and democracy'. But at the same time it does keep our economies somewhat stable. The people involved in these decisions know a LOT more than you or I about what is happening on the ground in those places and how a relatively small investment pays off in the longer term.
And if it helps feed some starving villages, or prevent another pandemic I'm all for it.

Just because YOU don't understand a complex relationship, doesn't mean it's worthless.

Well argued and you raise a lot of good points. I wonder how reducing waste fraud and abuse takes a lot of money out of the economy - money that gets recycled over and over again, and fills back up the tax coffers. But there can be other mechanisms to replace that than outright waste fraud and abuse. Sometimes a reset is a good thing. Lets hope so in this context.