Small win for activists, but SA's HIV projects won't get reopened
By
The $400m that the US Congress took off a list of programmes from which the Trump administration will now take back previously approved but unspent funds, doesn't mean the cuts to global HIV and TB programmes in February, including those in South Africa, are now reversed.
HIV projects that have closed in South Africa, which were formerly funded by the US government, won't restart as a result of this decision.
In fact, quite the opposite.
The 'limited Pepfar waiver' that President Donald Trump announced in February remains in place. That means no HIV prevention activities, unless they intend to stop pregnant and breastfeeding women from infecting their babies, can be paid for with US government money, and projects that make it easier for teen girls and young women in Africa, trans people, sex workers, injecting drug users and gay and bisexual men — groups of people that have a higher chance to get HIV than the general population — cannot be funded.
Without a proper explanation for it, the $400m seems to be a random amount that Trump's administration picked to take back from Pepfar, a US government programme that funds Aids projects in poorer countries with high HIV infection rates, such as South Africa.
The amount is about 8.5% of Pepfar's $4.725bn budget for this financial year and was part of a larger $9.4bn 'rescissions package' — that has now been reduced to $9bn and passed as the H.R.4 Rescissions Act of 2025.
Rescissions happen when the presidential administration wants to cancel funding that was approved by Congress and then use it for something else.
What the decision to remove the $400m from the package does, however, mean is that activism could finally be starting to pay off.
Activists have had hundreds of meetings with US senators and Congress committee chairs. There have been 'Save Pepfar' social media campaigns, and plenty of media coverage about the devastating consequences of the funding cuts. Tens of modelling studies have also projected what could happen if the lost funds are not replaced.
Opposition from within Trump's Republican Party against nonevidence-based cuts to a programme that has, for two decades, been supported by both the Democrats and Republicans and has saved over 25-million lives, is now at last emerging.
'It's a small win within the bigger context, but nonetheless, a huge win for advocacy, and a reminder that activism is powerful and alive, and making an impact,' Jirair Ratevosian, a former head of staff at Pepfar and fellow at Duke University's Global Health Institute, told Bhekisisa at last week's Conference on HIV Science in Kigali.
Around $8bn of the money was for foreign aid and development programmes, including global health, and just over $1bn for public broadcast stations that the Trump administration has accused of being biased because they're too liberal.
But the Rescissions Act is, in itself, bad news.
'It opens the floodgates for the Trump administration to say 'we don't want this or that in the budget that Congress approved',' says Mitchell Warren, the head of international advocacy organisation Avac.
'It's trying to take the congressional power of the purse and put it in the executive branch to usurp the role of Congress in deciding how much money — and on what to spend it.'
So how did this all happen, and does it hold any good in the long term for South Africa? We break it down.
1. How did we get here?
In the US, Congress — it consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives — decides how much government money goes to who, just like parliament does in South Africa. Both the Senate and the House have to pass budgets.
But, as analysts at the Centre for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, DC point out, President Trump wants more control over how his administration's money is spent.
In March, he signed the 2025 budget that Congress approved into law. Three months later, in June, he decided he wanted to change some of that and submitted a $9.4bn rescission request, which the House of Representatives (it has five more Republican than Democrat members) passed on June 12. When it was the Senate's turn to vote on this, some Republican senators weren't happy with the $400m Pepfar cut, signalling they wouldn't sign off on the deal unless the Pepfar part was removed.
Because there was a danger of them swinging the vote, the Republicans removed the $400m from the Rescissions Bill and got the House to pass that too. All that's left is for Trump to now sign the Act.
2. What was the $400m that was removed from the Rescissions Act for?
In short, no one really knows, because the Trump administration hasn't said what it was for — or what it plans to do with it. But what we do know is that the US law that governs rescissions, the Impoundment Control Act, says that the president can only request that Congress takes back funding that it previously approved, if the money has not yet been obligated — that means funds hadn't yet been given to a particular recipient, for instance, an HIV project in South Africa.
We also know that the $400m was part of the financial budget for 2025, says Warren, but because the law gives Pepfar permission to spend money over five years, that money doesn't have to be legally spent until 2029.
3. What will the $400m now be used for?
Again, no one knows. We don't even know if it will be used, because over the past few months, the Trump administration's main strategy has 'simply been to illegally impound funds — by announcing a 'funding freeze' or 'programmatic review' with no public notice at all — and force those harmed by the impoundments to pursue relief in court', the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities explains in an analysis.
But we do know what the money can't be used for.
Unless the rules of Trump's 'limited waiver' are changed, Pepfar funds can mostly not be spent on any of the evidence-based strategies it paid for before Trump was elected in January. Pepfar used to focus on groups of people and areas where people have the highest chance of getting infected with HIV — that way, the programme got the biggest bang for its buck.
In South Africa, for instance, Pepfar worked in the 27 districts with the highest infection rates and groups known as 'key populations' — sex workers, gay and bisexual men, trans people, injecting drug users and African women between the ages of 15 and 24 — that are much more likely to get newly infected with HIV than other South Africans.
Now those projects, which studies show stopped many new infections, have been closed down and the Trump administration says it's not prepared to buy HIV prevention medicine for any group other than pregnant and breastfeeding women. 'It used to be all about evidence,' Warren says. 'Now it's all about ideology.'
4. What do scientists and activists want the $400m to be used for?
Ratevosian says this moment should be used to gain Republican support to change the waiver rules, so that Pepfar money can cover more of the populations and services needed for HIV prevention.
Lenacapavir, a pricey twice-a-year anti-HIV jab, which scientists believe could help to stop HIV in its tracks if it's rolled out properly, could be used to convince Republican Congress members, says Ratevosian. 'Pepfar has long wanted to get countries to transition to taking more ownership [read: pay more] for their HIV responses. So now activists are arguing: 'Preventing more new infections with the jab, will make it easier for countries to take ownership because the pandemic will be easier to manage.''
In December, Pepfar said it would join another organisation, the Global Fund for HIV, TB and Malaria to buy enough lenacapavir for two-million people over three years. But in July, the Global Fund had to go ahead with the deal by itself, because Pepfar seemed to no longer be on board.
Warren says: 'If I were in charge, I would take the $400m and double the two million people the Global Fund is planning to cover, because that's how you build a market, prevent new infections more quickly and drive the price down.'
5. What will Pepfar look like in future?
Trump's funding cuts didn't kill Pepfar — at least not in theory, but it's a shell of its former self.
What it will look like, will depend on the size of its next budget (the Trump administration wants to cut it by 40% but, so far, the House hasn't agreed to that, (the Senate still needs to sit on it) and how much support Republicans who believe in Pepfar can gain to have waiver rules changed.
But, Warren points out, 'we're not going to get pre-January projects back; we have to build something different.
'This has been the most seismic shift in democracy. We didn't think we lived in an earthquake zone, but January 20 [when Trump retook office] taught us: you need to be prepared for that earthquake and you therefore need a different infrastructure.
'In an earthquake you don't build back the same thing. You build better, something that is more resilient.'
This story was produced by the Bhekisisa Centre for Health Journalism. Sign up for the
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
Deal includes $600 billion EU investments in US, more EU energy, defence purchases 15% tariff better than threatened 30%, in deal mirroring Japan's US steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 50% By Andrew Gray and Andrea Shalal The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made,' Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied 'across the board'. 'We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. 'We are agreeing that the tariff… for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%,' Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days.' He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was 'formed to screw the United States' on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the United States'. His main bugbear is the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major U.S. trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target U.S. services in the event of a no-deal.
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
SA practising damaging politics of the zero-sum game
While there are many prisms through which you can attempt to understand our politics, one may be to examine whether people see the entire process as a zero-sum game. There may now be mounting evidence that more politicians and voters believe every single issue must be reduced to winners and losers. Anyone with much experience of life will be aware that, as a general rule, when life improves for one person, it often improves for another. This happens in an economy all the time. It is well known that one restaurant in one city block might be popular enough to bring in a certain number of customers. But a group of competing restaurants in the same place are much more likely to bring in a much bigger number. In other words, you are more likely to be successful through sharing space with other restaurants. Growing an economy might well rest on this. One cannot just make a product and sell it on your own. You need to be part of a chain that enables your market and ensures you have both suppliers to help you make your product, and customers to buy it. People who are thinking over the longer term will often make decisions that will cost them in the short run, because they expect to gain in the longer run. Last week, Moneyweb reported that some suppliers to Pick n Pay were actually giving it goods at lower than usual prices. While this costs them in the short run, they don't want a situation where Checkers becomes so dominant they only have one person to sell to. This means that they are helping someone to regain market share. In the case of South Africa, with its incredibly diverse constituencies, and defined by its inequality, the idea of people helping one another might well be more important than in many other places. Winners and losers The nature of our economy requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Instead, what we have is people simply fighting really hard not to be the losers, and others not the winners. Currently, 50 proposals to change the Labour Relations Act are going through Nedlac. While labour analyst Andrew Levy says it's not clear if they really change the balance between workers and managers, several groups and unions have already held a protest against the proposals. They believe that their members might soon lose out, and managers might win. This kind of situation happens all the time in our society. In our politics, the coalition sometimes appears to be reduced to fights between the ANC and the DA that are literally about ensuring one wins and the other loses. Because this is all happening in public, and they are representing constituencies, it can give the impression that those constituencies are really fighting to ensure they are not seen to lose. This transactional approach, and the damage it can cause, is wonderfully, and horrifically, illustrated by the Trump administration's approach to trade. One of the most important dynamics of the past 30 years has been the rise of China as a manufacturer of trade goods. It has made these goods at a cheaper price than many other places, and sold them. This has exported deflation around the world – the price of a cheap bicycle has declined dramatically in real terms since the 1980s. This is largely because companies in different countries have traded with each other. And both parties have become very rich doing so. Trump appears to believe that if one country is getting rich, the other must be losing out. The overwhelming evidence is that this is not the case. Instead, both parties win through these transactions. In some ways, such is the impact of the US, that this example might well be having an impact on our politics. At the same time, another important aspect of how life really works is being lost. In many cases, there is no clear 'winner' and clear 'loser'. Often it is entirely grey, with very little difference in shade. The NHI stand-off In our politics now, it seems that everything must become a life and death situation, that there will be armageddon if someone does not get what they want. Given our inequality, this can sometimes appear as if it is a life-and-death struggle between classes. The NHI might be a useful example: those who support it say the rich are trying to condemn the poor to death, those who oppose it say the rich will lose everything they have. Instead, this is something that should really be negotiated between representatives of constituencies. And there should be a solution that everyone can live with. There are many reasons why we are in this situation. Our racialised inequality must be an important reason. Those who are poor have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while those who are rich have everything to lose and nothing to gain. But this may also be the result of deliberate political strategy. Just as politicians have created abortion as a political issue in the US, by forcing people to take a position, so our leaders often do the same. Both the ANC and the DA benefit from continuing the fight around the NHI. They both get to demonstrate to their constituencies that they are fighting for them. And because the struggle for voters is now so difficult and so intense, the stakes rise each time, and so it is more likely that politicians will behave in this way. All of this feeds an artificial intensity in our politics.
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
The United States struck a framework trade deal with the European Union on Sunday, imposing a 15% US import tariff on most EU goods, but averting a spiralling battle between two allies which account for almost a third of global trade. The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with US President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. "I think this is the biggest deal ever made," Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied "across the board". "We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability," she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. "We are agreeing that the tariff... for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%," Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of "90 deals in 90 days." He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was "formed to screw the United States" on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted "to make a deal very badly" and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been "very unfair to the United States". His main bugbear is the US merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to US Census Bureau data. The EU points to the US surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the "hundreds of billions of dollars" that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major US trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of US goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target US services in the event of a no-deal.
