White House seeks deep cuts to war crimes probes, including Ukraine and Myanmar
WASHINGTON, June 27 — The White House has recommended terminating US funding for nearly two dozen programmes that conduct war crimes and accountability work globally, including in Myanmar, Syria and on alleged Russian atrocities in Ukraine, according to three US sources familiar with the matter and internal government documents reviewed by Reuters.
The recommendation from the Office of Management and Budget, which was made on Wednesday and has not been previously reported, is not the final decision to end the programmes since it gives the State Department the option to appeal.
But it sets up a potential back-and-forth between the OMB and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his aides, who will reply to OMB with their suggestions on which programmes deserve to continue.
The programmes also include work in Iraq, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Belarus, Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan and the Gambia, according to the sources and a list seen by Reuters.
The State Department declined to comment. OMB did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The expectation that Rubio would argue for many of the programmes to be continued is slim, according to three US officials. However, the top US diplomat could make a case to keep crucial programmes, such as aiding potential war crimes prosecutions in Ukraine, according to one source familiar with the matter.
Several of the programmes earmarked for termination operate war crimes accountability projects in Ukraine, three sources familiar with the matter said, including Global Rights Compliance, which is helping to collect evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity across Ukraine, such as sexual violence and torture.
Another is Legal Action Worldwide, a legal aid group which supports local efforts to bring cases against Russian suspects of war crimes in Ukraine, the sources said.
Requests seeking comment from the groups were not immediately answered.
State Department bureaus that would like to preserve any war crimes and accountability programmes should send their justifications by close of business day on July 11, said an internal State Department email seen by Reuters.
Changing priorities
Many of the programmes recommended for termination are dedicated to empowering local organizations seeking to advance justice in societies that have faced atrocities, one of the sources said, adding that some programmes have been going on for decades across Democratic and Republican administrations.
'Even if Secretary Rubio intervenes to save these programmes, many of which he supported as a senator, there will be no one left to manage these programmes,' the source said.
The administration of President Donald Trump has frozen and then cut back billions of dollars of foreign aid since taking office on January 20 to ensure American-taxpayer money funds programmes that are aligned with his 'America First' policies.
The unprecedented cutbacks have effectively shut down its premier aid arm US Agency for International Development, jeopardised the delivery of life-saving food and medical aid and thrown global humanitarian relief operations into chaos.
The OMB recommendation is yet another sign that the administration is increasingly de-prioritising advocacy for human rights and rule of law globally, an objective that previous US administrations have pursued.
While US foreign aid freezes had already started hampering an international effort to hold Russia responsible for alleged war crimes in Ukraine, Wednesday's recommendations raise the risk of US completely abandoning those efforts.
Among the programmes that are recommended for termination is a US$18 million (RM76 million) State Department grant for Ukraine's Prosecutor General's Office that is implemented by Georgetown University's International Criminal Justice Initiative, two sources said.
An official at Georgetown declined to comment.
While the programmes do not directly impact Ukraine's frontline efforts to fend off Russia's invasion, supporters say they represent the best chance of extensively documenting reported battlefield atrocities in Europe's biggest conflict since World War Two, now grinding toward a fourth year.
Ukraine has opened more than 140,000 war crime cases since Moscow's February 2022 invasion, which has killed tens of thousands, ravaged vast swathes of the country and left behind mental and physical scars from occupation. Russia consistently denies war crimes have been committed by its forces in the conflict.
Path to appeal
Other programmes include one that does accountability work on Myanmar army's atrocities against Rohingya minorities as well as on the persecution of Christians and other minorities by Syria's ousted former president Bashar al-Assad, two sources said.
While the OMB recommendations could face State Department push-back, the criteria to appeal are set very strictly.
In an internal State Department email, the administration cautioned that any effort to preserve programmes that were recommended to be terminated should be thoroughly argued and directly aligned with Washington's priorities.
'Bureaus must clearly and succinctly identify direct alignment to administration priorities,' the email, reviewed by Reuters said. — Reuters
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Malay Mail
3 hours ago
- Malay Mail
‘I don't understand it well': Immigrants and advocates seek clarity as US Supreme Court ruling clouds citizenship rights
Supreme Court ruling causes confusion over birthright citizenship Lawyers and advocates field calls from anxious clients Uncertainty remains on policy across different states WASHINGTON, June 28 — The US Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed US agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate US district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. Worried calls Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the US annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organisation United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation — CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project — would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organisations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a US citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the US from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana ... is the baby going to be a citizen?' — Reuters

Malay Mail
4 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Trump scores win as Supreme Court limits judges, yet birthright citizenship policy remains in limbo
Trump directive would limit birthright citizenship Supreme Court did not decide legality of directive Court's ruling leaves room to maintain block on policy WASHINGTON, June 28 — The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship — a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called 'universal' injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasised the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an 'imperial' judiciary. Judges can provide 'complete relief' only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A host of policies That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government — many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on US soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in 'class-protective' injunctions. 'Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal,' Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. 'I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference,' said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. 'We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed.' The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. States challenge directive The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. 'As the majority recognises, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups,' Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, 'recognised that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm — which is true, and has always been true, in our case.' Platkin committed to 'keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War' of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. 'The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as US citizens,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. — Reuters

Barnama
8 hours ago
- Barnama
DR Congo, Rwanda Sign US-Brokered Peace Deal
U.S. President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance meet Democratic Republic of the Congo's Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner and Rwanda's Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C., June 27, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno HAMILTON (Canada), June 28 (Bernama-Anadolu) -- The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Republic of Rwanda signed a US-mediated peace agreement on Friday, aiming to end the deadly fighting in eastern Congo, Anadolu Ajansi (AA) reported. "We're grateful that both of you were here, and it's instrumental. This is an important moment after 30 years of war," said US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the signing ceremony. The agreement includes commitments to respect territorial integrity, cease hostilities, disengage and disarm non-state armed groups, establish a joint security coordination mechanism, and facilitate the return of refugees, humanitarian access, and regional economic cooperation. bootstrap slideshow According to various reports, the deal also paves the way for the US and American companies to gain access to the region's minerals as an incentive for helping to end the war. Rubio expressed excitement over the deal and said: "We can't wait to have the heads of state and the presence of the respective countries here in Washington in a few weeks to finalise the complete protocol and agreement." "But today is an important step in that direction," he added. He further noted that "it is not just about ending wars, and it's not just about saving lives. It's about allowing people to live.' Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe said a 'turning point has been reached' with the deal. 'We will lend our full support in the weeks ahead to Qatar's mediation efforts … to secure a peace agreement between the DRC government and the AFC/M23,' he added, pointing towards a new phase of the process.