US aid cuts may force millions more from homes: Danish NGO
US President Donald Trump has cut 83 percent of funding for overseas programmes run by development agency USAID, with France, Germany and Britain also slashing their aid commitments.
The Danish NGO warned that development programmes directly targeted the issues that force people to flee their homes -- conflict, rights violations, the effects of climate change, and economic crises.
'When funding is suddenly cut, lifelines are cut: The vital services that protect vulnerable communities from violence, hunger, and displacement abruptly disappear, leading to tragic consequences,' the group's Secretary General Charlotte Slente said in a statement.
If US funding is fully withdrawn and other donors also decrease aid, the council said, it could lead to a 'staggering' 7.85 million people being displaced this year.
The council's projections suggested 3.95 million people would be expected to flee their homes if funding was fully maintained.
In a scenario where 50 percent of US aid is cut, the NGO projected a total of 5.75 million would be newly displaced.
At the end of April, 122.1 million people were living away from their homes because of war, violence or persecution, according to a report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
34 minutes ago
- The Star
As USAID stops foreign aid, Rubio says future US assistance will be limited
FILE PHOTO: A security guard is stationed in the former offices of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where black tape covers the signage on the windows, in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 24, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Agency for International Development will on Tuesday officially stop implementing foreign aid, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, adding that America's assistance in the future will be targeted and limited. In a statement marking the transfer of USAID to the State Department as part of President Donald Trump's unprecedented push to shrink the federal government, Rubio said the U.S. was abandoning what he called a charity-based model and would focus on empowering countries to grow sustainably. "We will favor those nations that have demonstrated both the ability and willingness to help themselves and will target our resources to areas where they can have a multiplier effect and catalyze durable private sector, including American companies, and global investment," the top U.S. diplomat wrote. This new model, he wrote, would prioritize trade over aid and investment over assistance, adding it would put Washington in a stronger place to counter Beijing. The Trump administration has frozen and then cut back billions of dollars of foreign aid since taking office, saying it wants to ensure U.S. taxpayer money goes only to programs that are aligned with Trump's "America First" policies. The cutbacks have effectively shut down USAID, leading to the firing of thousands of its employees and contractors. That jeopardized the delivery of life-saving food and medical aid and has thrown global humanitarian relief operations into chaos. According to research published in The Lancet medical journal, deep funding cuts to USAID and its dismantling could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030. Human rights experts and advocates have warned against the cuts. USAID funding has had a crucial role in improving global health, primarily directed toward low- and middle-income countries, particularly African nations, according to the study. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the administration canceled a major contract to supply emergency kits for rape survivors in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo as violence surged there this year, leaving thousands without access to life-saving medication, the United Nations and aid groups said. INVESTMENT AND TRADE DEALS USAID was established in 1961 by Democratic President John F. Kennedy at the height of the Cold War with the aim of better coordinating foreign assistance, already a key platform of U.S. foreign policy in countering Soviet influence. Washington has been the world's largest humanitarian aid donor, amounting to at least 38% of all contributions recorded by the United Nations. It disbursed $61 billion in foreign assistance last year, just over half of that via USAID, according to government data. Among the programs affected by the cuts is the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the world's leading HIV/AIDS initiative. Sub-Saharan Africa remains the epicenter of the AIDS pandemic. Trump's cuts have restricted the availability of drugs that millions of Africans have taken to prevent infection - particularly vulnerable communities such as gay men and sex workers - as aid groups and public health systems in Africa strove to roll back the disease. Trump has said the U.S. pays disproportionately for foreign aid and he wants other countries to shoulder more of the burden. A senior State Department official briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity described the USAID model as "failed engagement" that did not reduce the dependency of foreign countries on the United States, and he said other nations will need to step up. "We want to see more investment from our partners, co-investment," the official said. "We want to see trade deals, compacts, agreements to work together on stuff." The shuttering of USAID drew a rare rebuke from former presidents George Bush and Barack Obama who joined a closed video conference event with the USAID community, the Associated Press reported on Monday. "Gutting USAID is a travesty and it's a tragedy. Because it's some of the most important work happening anywhere in the world," Obama was quoted as saying. (Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk; Additional reporting by Daphne Psaledakis; Editing by Don Durfee and Daniel Wallis)
The Star
an hour ago
- The Star
Majority of Finns prefer to shift away from U.S. products, investment: survey
HELSINKI, July 1 (Xinhua) -- A recent survey conducted by Finnish financial services group LahiTapiola reveals that two out of three Finns now prefer to purchase products and services from Europe rather than the United States. The shift is largely attributed to U.S. President Donald Trump's unpredictable trade policies. According to the survey results released Tuesday, 66 percent of respondents said Trump's policies have made them more inclined to favor European goods and services. Only 16 percent disagreed, while 18 percent remained undecided. The findings also show that 56 percent of Finns believe that avoiding investments in U.S. companies is a responsible value-based choice. Among those who currently hold investments, that figure rises slightly to 59 percent. The accompanying press release cites growing concern over the negative impact of Trump's policies on Europe, particularly regarding economic stability and security, as the main driver behind this shift away from U.S. goods and investments. Beyond economic and political concerns, many Finns expressed frustration with Trump's communication style. The survey indicated that his rhetoric and behavior have fostered an emotional resistance toward American products. This sentiment appears to extend beyond Finland. The press release mentioned Tesla as a notable example, pointing out that its sales have been hit hard. According to the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association, registrations of new Tesla vehicles in EU countries dropped by more than 45 percent between January and May 2025, compared to the same period in 2024. Heikki Urpelainen, portfolio manager at LahiTapiola Asset Management, noted that escalating trade restrictions are making the United States a less attractive export market. In response, European companies are increasingly lowering prices and focusing on domestic sales. While this trend may provide short-term advantages for some European firms, Urpelainen warned that the broader impact of Trump's tariffs is detrimental to European exporters overall. The survey, conducted in April 2025, collected responses from 1,100 Finnish residents aged 18 and older.
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Road to Middle East peace runs through Teheran and Tel Aviv
IRAN stands at the crossroads of history for resisting Israel and the United States that went all out to destroy the Islamic republic's uranium enrichment facilities. With or without nuclear weapons, Teheran can be a force for equilibrium and stability — not just in the Middle East, but across the Eurasian heartland. In hindsight, everything was going well with Iran's nuclear programme until US President Donald Trump decided to dump the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on May 8, 2018. Technically speaking, the US withdrawal from JPOA removed Iran from its obligations and expedited its "breakout time" — the time it would take for Iran to produce enough weapon-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb. By the morning of June 22, when all hell broke loose over the Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan uranium processing sites, Iran had the capacity to enrich uranium to 60 per cent purity, short of the 90 per cent that Israel feared. Incidentally, Israel has nuclear bombs at Dimona that could blow the entire region into pieces, and yet Tel Aviv is fearful of Teheran that has no nuclear bombs? After the US strikes, Trump triumphantly declared that the facilities "were totally and completely obliterated". His assessment was later downplayed by Central Intelligence Agency director John Ratcliffe. The killing of Iran's top nuclear scientists and generals may set back the process for a few years. However, it is unlikely to undermine its technical capacity to weaponise the knowledge, if it wishes to. The current Iran-Israel conflict is no longer based on ideological schisms or differences. Instead, the once-dominant Arab-Israeli conflict has given way to a more complex, dangerous and region-defining rivalry between Iran and Israel — one that reflects shifting alliances, strategic ambition and a new geopolitical architecture in the Middle East. This new fault line is less about identity or religion, and more about regional hegemony, deterrence, and resistance to unilateralism, territorial domination and land grabbing. Lastly, Israel's genocide policy in Gaza is a stark warning to other countries that they, too, could face the same fate if they dare challenge the nuclear state of Israel openly. Israel is a formidable military power and can respond to Iranian attacks — but without the US, it faces high strategic and operational risk. While US involvement provides the margin between military resilience and regional catastrophe, the response from Iran touched the very heart of Middle Eastern geopolitics in that states, however weak they are perceived to be, will stand up to regional bullies, a lesson that Tel Aviv should heed. The recent "12-day war" shows clearly that the Iran-Israel rivalry cannot be managed through bombs and diplomacy alone. What the Middle East needs to prevent further clashes involving the big powers is a new collective security dialogue and an acknowledgement that Iran, with a population of 90 million and sophisticated homegrown hypersonic missile technology, is a force to reckon with. Besides, it controls the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic choke point, through which some 20 million barrels of oil go through daily. Israel's true survival lies not in bombs, walls or foreign guarantees but in reconciliation, restraint and regional trust. Its security comes not from controlling land or stockpiling weapons — it comes from genuine coexistence with neighbours based on mutual respect, shared dignity and resilience. The road to Middle East peace no longer runs through Cairo, Riyadh or Amman — it now runs through Teheran and Tel Aviv. Thus, the Arab-Israeli conflict is no longer the story. The Iran-Israel confrontation is.
