US foreign aid cuts could cause 14 million deaths, study finds
The study in the prestigious Lancet journal was published as world and business leaders gather for a UN conference in Spain this week hoping to bolster the reeling aid sector.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had provided over 40 percent of global humanitarian funding until Donald Trump returned to the White House in January.
Two weeks later, Trump's then-close advisor -- and world's richest man -- Elon Musk boasted of having put the agency "through the woodchipper".
The funding cuts "risk abruptly halting -- and even reversing -- two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations," warned study co-author Davide Rasella, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal).
"For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," he said in a statement.
Looking back over data from 133 nations, the international team of researchers estimated that USAID funding had prevented 91 million deaths in developing countries between 2001 and 2021.
They also used modelling to project how funding being slashed by 83 percent -- the figure announced by the US government earlier this year -- could affect death rates.
The cuts could lead to more than 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030, the projections found. That number included over 4.5 million children under the age of five -- or around 700,000 child deaths a year.
For comparison, around 10 million soldiers are estimated to have been killed during World War I.
Programmes supported by USAID were linked to a 15-percent decrease in deaths from all causes, the researchers found. For children under five, the drop in deaths was twice as steep at 32 percent.
USAID funding was found to be particularly effective at staving off preventable deaths from disease.
There were 65 percent fewer deaths from HIV / AIDS in countries receiving a high level of support compared to those with little or no USAID funding, the study found. Deaths from malaria and neglected tropical diseases were similarly cut in half.
'Time to scale up'
After USAID was gutted, several other major donors including Germany, the UK and France followed suit in announcing plans to slash their foreign aid budgets.
These aid reductions, particularly in the European Union, could lead to "even more additional deaths in the coming years," study co-author Caterina Monti of ISGlobal said.
11:22
But the grim projections for deaths were based on the current amount of pledged aid, so could rapidly come down if the situation changes, the researchers emphasised.
Dozens of world leaders are meeting in the Spanish city of Seville this week for the biggest aid conference in a decade. The US, however, will not attend.
"Now is the time to scale up, not scale back," Rasella said.
Before its funding was slashed, USAID represented 0.3 percent of all US federal spending.
"US citizens contribute about 17 cents per day to USAID, around $64 per year," said study co-author James Macinko of the University of California, Los Angeles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
2 days ago
- Euronews
Millions will die if US funding to fight HIV is not replaced, UN warns
The US's decision to halt most foreign aid this year has been a 'systemic shock' to the fight against AIDS, according to officials from the United Nations who said there could be more than four million AIDS-related deaths and six million more HIV infections by 2029 if the US funding is not replaced. Years of US-led investment into AIDS programmes has reduced the number of people killed by the disease to the lowest levels seen in more than three decades, and provided life-saving medicines for some of the world's most vulnerable. But in the last six months, the sudden withdrawal of US money has threatened that progress, UNAIDS said in a report released Thursday. 'The current wave of funding losses has already destabilised supply chains, led to the closure of health facilities, left thousands of health clinics without staff, set back prevention programmes, disrupted HIV testing efforts, and forced many community organisations to reduce or halt their HIV activities,' the agency said. UNAIDS also said that it feared other major donors might also scale back their support, reversing decades of progress against AIDS worldwide – and that the strong multilateral cooperation is in jeopardy because of wars, geopolitical shifts, and climate change. The $4 billion (€3.4 billion) that the US pledged for the global HIV response for 2025 disappeared virtually overnight in January when US President Donald Trump ordered that all foreign aid be suspended and later moved to shutter the US aid agency. Andrew Hill, an HIV expert at the University of Liverpool who is not connected to the UN, said that while Trump is entitled to spend US money as he sees fit, 'any responsible government would have given advance warning so countries could plan,' instead of stranding patients in Africa when clinics were closed overnight. Impact of US investment in HIV/AIDS The US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, was launched in 2003 by then-President George W Bush, the biggest-ever commitment by any country focused on a single disease. UNAIDS called the programme a 'lifeline' for countries with high HIV rates, and said that it supported testing for 84.1 million people, treatment for 20.6 million, among other initiatives. According to data from Nigeria, PEPFAR also funded 99.9 per cent of the country's budget for medicines taken to prevent HIV. In 2024, there were about 630,000 AIDS-related deaths worldwide, per a UNAIDS estimate. That figure has remained about the same since 2022, after peaking at about two million deaths in 2004. Even before the US funding cuts, progress against curbing HIV was uneven. UNAIDS said that half of all new infections are in sub-Saharan Africa and that more than 50 per cent of all people who need treatment but aren't getting it are in Africa and Asia. 'US is abandoning the fight' The political uncertainty arrived shortly after a medical breakthrough in the fight against HIV. Studies published last year showed that a twice-yearly injectable drug from pharmaceutical maker Gilead was 100 per cent effective in preventing the virus. Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the drug, called Sunleca – a move that should have been a 'threshold moment' for stopping the AIDS epidemic, said Peter Maybarduk of the advocacy group Public Citizen. But activists like Maybarduk said Gilead's pricing will put it out of reach of many countries that need it. Gilead has agreed to sell generic versions of the drug in 120 poor countries with high HIV rates but has excluded nearly all of Latin America, where rates are far lower but increasing. 'We could be ending AIDS," Maybarduk said. 'Instead, the US is abandoning the fight'.
France 24
2 days ago
- France 24
US funding cuts could reverse decades of gains in AIDS fight: UN
Around 31.6 million people were on antiretroviral drugs in 2024 and deaths from AIDS-related illnesses had more than halved since 2010 to 630,000 that year, the UNAIDS agency said in a new report. But now infections were likely to shoot up as funding cuts have shuttered prevention and treatment programmes, it said. The United States has been the world's biggest donor of humanitarian assistance but President Donald Trump's abrupt slashing of international aid in February sent the global humanitarian community scrambling to keep life-saving operations afloat. "We are proud of the achievements, but worried about this sudden disruption reversing the gains we have made," UNAIDS executive director Winnie Byanyima told AFP ahead of the report's launch in Johannesburg. The agency in April warned that a permanent discontinuation of PEPFAR, the massive US effort to fight HIV/AIDS, would lead to more than six million new infections and an additional 4.2 million AIDS-related deaths in the next four years. This would bring the pandemic back to levels not seen since the early 2000s. "This is not just a funding gap – it's a ticking time bomb" whose effects are already felt worldwide, Byanyima said in a press release. Over 60 percent of all women-led HIV organisations surveyed by UNAIDS had lost funding or had to suspend services, the report said. In a striking example, the number of people receiving pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) drugs to prevent transmission in Nigeria fell by over 85 percent in the first few months of 2025. The "story of how the world has come together" to fight HIV/AIDS is "one of the most important stories of progress in global health," Byanyima told AFP. "But that great story has been disrupted massively" by Trump's "unprecedented" and "cruel" move, she said. "Priorities can shift, but you do not take away life-saving support from people just like that," she said. Key medical research affected Crucial medical research on prevention and treatment have also shut down, including many in South Africa which has one of the highest HIV rates in the world and has become a leader in global research. "Developing countries themselves contribute very much towards the research on HIV and AIDS, and that research serves the whole world," Byaniyma said. In 25 out of 60 low- and middle-income countries surveyed by UNAIDS, governments had found ways to compensate part of the funding shortfall with domestic resources. "We have to move towards nationally-owned and financed responses," Byaniyma said, calling for debt relief and the reform of international financial institutions to "free up the fiscal space for developing countries to pay for their own response". Still, the global HIV response built from grassroots activism was "resilient by its very nature", she told AFP. "We moved from people dying every single day to now a point where it is really like a chronic illness," she said. © 2025 AFP
Local France
4 days ago
- Local France
French phrase of the day: Salle de shoot
Why do I need to know salle de shoot? So that you can follow the debate on the treatment of drug addicts. What does it mean Salle de shoot – roughly pronounced sahl duh shoot – is an informal French expression for a supervised drug consumption facility. In such a location, drug users can inject or consume narcotics under medical supervision, using sterile equipment and with access to social and health services. The goal is to reduce the health risks for drug users by connecting them with medical professionals and to prevent unsafe injection in public. The more official term is salle de consommation à moindre risque (lower-risk consumption room). In fact, salle de shoot is often considered a derogatory term with negative connotations of chaos and criminality rather than care and harm reduction. It tends to be used by people who campaign against these facilities, though in recent years the term has become very commonplace and is often used in news headlines or general conversation, even by people who don't oppose them. It uses the English word 'shoot' as in 'shoot up' - the informal way to talk about injecting drugs. Advertisement Recent proposals to open new salles de shoot in France have caused intense political discussions, which is why you're likely to hear the term in the news these days. There are currently two salles de shoots in France; one in Paris 10th arrondissement, next to Gare du Nord station, and one in Strasbourg. They were opened after countries like Switzerland, Germany and the Netherlands already did so with success. Research shows supervised sites reduce overdose mortality, the transmission of HIV and hepatitis C, as well as the crime rate in the area, and the number of disposed needles. The French word salle is widely used to mean a room - either a public one like the salle de fête (function room) in a town hall or a private space like your salle de bain (bathroom). If you're looking to get involved in the sport of shooting in France, that would be tir sportif . Use it like this Ils veulent ouvrir une salle de shoot près de la gare ? Ça va encore faire polémique. – They want to open a supervised injection site near the station? That's going to stir up controversy again. Le personnel médical préfère dire 'salle de consommation à moindre risque' parce que c'est plus juste et moins stigmatisant – The medical staff prefer to say 'supervised consumption room' because it's more accurate and less stigmatising.
