Rubio announces end to USAID programs
Long the primary vehicle for funding political and development projects abroad, USAID had 'fallen well below' its obligations to advance US interests, Rubio said in a statement on Tuesday. With more than $715 billion in inflation-adjusted spending over the decades, the agency promoted 'anti-American ideals and groups,' including DEI, censorship, and regime change operations, while fostering an 'NGO industrial complex,' he added.
'This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end… As of July 1st, USAID will officially cease to implement foreign assistance,' Rubio stated, adding that the State Department has officially absorbed the agency's functions.
US President Donald Trump launched the process of dismantling USAID shortly after returning to office in January, after accusing the organization – often criticized by conservatives as promoting liberal causes – of being run by 'radical lunatics' and facilitating corruption 'at levels rarely seen before.'
As part of Trump's broader federal waste-cutting initiative, thousands of USAID employees were fired or placed on leave, and billions in aid contracts were frozen or scrapped entirely. The effort has been led by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a new body tasked with reducing bureaucratic overhead across federal programs.
The consequences of USAID's closure have drawn concern from health experts and development advocates.
In addition to funding NGOs abroad, USAID played a key role in financing global healthcare programs. Critics warn its dismantling could have long-term effects on global health and development.
According to a study published Monday in The Lancet, the funding cuts could result in over 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 from diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. The authors noted that between 2001 and 2021, USAID-backed programs were estimated to have saved over 91 million lives in low- and middle-income countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
Trump attacks ‘communist lunatic' New York mayoral candidate
US President Donald Trump has accused Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani of trying to 'destroy New York,' calling him a 'communist lunatic.' In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, the president promised to save the Big Apple. Mamdani swept to victory in the Democratic primary last week, defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo with 56% of the vote. The assemblyman from Queens has described himself as a democratic socialist and is running on a platform that includes fare-free public transit, rent freezes, universal childcare, and publicly owned grocery stores. 'As president of the United States, I'm not going to let this communist lunatic destroy New York. Rest assured, I hold all the levers, and have all the cards. I'll save New York City, and make it 'Hot' and 'Great' again, just like I did with the Good Ol' USA!' Trump wrote. Earlier this week, Mamdani got the president's attention after he vowed to prevent ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents from operating in New York City and 'deporting our neighbors.' Speaking at a detention facility in Florida on Tuesday, the president threatened to arrest the mayoral nominee if he tries to interfere with ICE raids. 'We do not need a communist in this country, but if we have one, I am going to be watching over him very carefully on behalf of the nation,' Trump said, suggesting that law enforcement would look into whether Mamdani is in the country legally. Mamdani, who was born in Uganda, moved to the US as a child and became a naturalized citizen in 2018. Responding to Trump's remarks, Mamdani accused the US leader of trying to intimidate dissenters. 'He threatened me with arrest and deportation not because I have broken any law, but because I will refuse to let ICE terrorize our city,' he said on X.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Cold War diplomacy is dead. What lessons did we never learn?
In times of upheaval, it is tempting to draw comparisons with the past. We search for patterns, wondering if things will repeat. As Israel and the United States waged war against Iran, many were reminded of other historical calamities: the outbreak of world wars, or more regionally, the destruction of Iraqi statehood in the early 2000s. Experience may be instructive, but it rarely repeats in quite the same way. This extraordinary campaign has shown that once again. Yet if we look at the deeper logic of state behavior, there is often more consistency. Even so, paradigms do shift; and the future can be predicted, in part, if we apply knowledge and imagination. Fifty years ago this month, in July 1975, leaders of 35 European states, the United States, and Canada gathered in Helsinki to sign the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). That landmark document crowned years of negotiation over how to manage coexistence between ideological systems whose rivalries had shaped the entire postwar world. The act formalized the status quo after World War II, including state borders and spheres of influence, especially between the two Germanies, Poland, and the Soviet Union. It confirmed the division of Europe, and the rules by which that division would be managed. Half a century is a long time. Counting back fifty years from Helsinki takes us to 1925, a brief interwar calm. Back then, the great powers believed the age of world wars was behind them, even as conflict potential was building on social, economic, ideological, military, and technological fronts. The Second World War was an unimaginable catastrophe, and the victors were determined to stop anything like it happening again. From that came a new international system. Despite the chronic Cold War confrontation that sometimes turned acute, mutual constraints and a stable balance of power preserved Europe's security. The CSCE then cemented this relative stability. The past fifty years have brought equally profound shifts in the international order, yet they are often perceived differently. In 1975, hardly anyone referred to 1925 as a framework; the eras were understood to be totally distinct. Today, in contrast, the Helsinki Accords are still cited as a supposed foundation of European security, and their principles treated as universal. There is no arguing with the ideals the Helsinki Final Act set out: respect for sovereignty, commitment to avoid the use of force, upholding borders, and promoting cooperation for mutual development. At that time, these promises were credible because they were backed by a durable balance of power – a balance guaranteed by Cold War competition. But the Cold War ended long ago, and with it the system of checks and balances that gave those promises substance. For the United States and its allies, the 1975 Helsinki framework (and the even earlier settlements at Yalta and Potsdam) were always seen as reluctant compromises with totalitarian adversaries. When the socialist bloc collapsed and the Soviet Union dissolved a decade and a half later, Western leaders felt confirmed in their historical righteousness. They believed they had a mandate to enforce the Helsinki principles as they interpreted them – this time on their own terms, with no rival power to check them. The disappearance of previous guarantees was not frightening to the West but encouraging. Today, on this anniversary, we must ask how relevant those ideals still are. The liberal world order is unraveling, and even the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which inherited the CSCE's mission, is struggling to justify its existence. In the 1970s, world war was the fixed point of reference. Negotiations did not create a balance; they preserved it. The limits of what was acceptable had been established decades earlier, and the CSCE merely updated them. Had the Cold War ended with a clear and recognized victor, a new framework might have emerged, with widespread legitimacy. But because the outcome was never fully formalized, strategic uncertainty took its place. Everyone assumed the West had won, but no treaty codified it. That opened the door for every power to try to revise the settlement whenever the balance of power shifted. And when the stronger party – the United States – began ignoring its own declared rules to chase short-term advantage, the system began to unravel even faster. The OSCE still claims to rest on the order born in 1945 and affirmed in 1975, but that order no longer exists. Around the globe, countries are revisiting the results of World War II, challenging old hierarchies in different ways. That alone undermines Europe's postwar stability. Meanwhile, the West has lost its once-undisputed ability to impose its preferences on others. The United States is struggling to redefine its place in the world, with no clear outcome yet. Europe has lost its status as the world's political steward. Eurasia is becoming a more integrated space, though still unfinished. The Middle East is undergoing profound change, while Asia – from its eastern to southern edges – is a field of intense competition, even as it drives global growth. At moments like this, everything seems to move at once, including borders – both physical and moral. All the reference points are shifting simultaneously. So, is the Helsinki legacy completely irrelevant? Not entirely. Its core mission was to stabilize a known confrontation, to give it structure and predictability. Today's world does not have that kind of stable confrontation, and is unlikely to develop one soon, because events are too chaotic and too multidirectional. There is no solid balance of power to anchor things. Trying to copy Helsinki logic in Asia, for example, would only backfire. There, globalization has created massive interdependence – even between rivals. Forcing a political-military architecture on top of that would worsen tensions rather than calm them, subordinating economic logic to rigid power blocs. The Old World was prone to this mistake; Asia would suffer for repeating it. Nor can we expect the OSCE to recover its conflict-management role in Europe, given the gap between its lofty ambitions and its actual means. However, there is still something to learn from Helsinki. Diplomacy then was guided by classical principles: weighing complex interests, acknowledging you cannot achieve everything, maintaining at least a minimum of trust, and respecting your counterpart even amid deep ideological opposition. These approaches seem obvious, but after decades of liberal moral posturing and talk of 'the right side of history,' they are almost revolutionary once more. Perhaps we must relearn those basic diplomatic virtues. Helsinki's experience – born of the worst of wars but committed to peace – reminds us that respect, realism, and a readiness to talk can matter far more than fantasies of ideological purity.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
Moscow responds to NATO chief's ‘Jesus' comment about Lavrov
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte mentioning Jesus Christ when talking about Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov means that Moscow's top diplomat is doing good job, ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said. She was referring to a brief interview Rutte gave Fox News on Wednesday. The NATO chief sought to diminish the role of the Russian foreign minister by claiming that he 'has been foreign minister of Russia … since the birth of Jesus Christ. And since then, nothing… useful came out of his month.' 'Not for nothing has Sergey Lavrov been working for so many years since he has made the NATO Secretary General remember Jesus Christ,' Zakharova quipped in response in a Telegram statement. A veteran diplomat, Lavrov has headed the Russian Foreign Ministry for more than 20 years, since 2004. Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister, has been in the NATO top job for less than a year, but already found himself at the center of controversy at the bloc's summit last week. Some European officials were unhappy with the level of flattery he used to win over US President Donald Trump during the meeting, according to Politico. 'People are so embarrassed,' one official told the outlet, adding that 'the sucking up was pretty over the top.' Rutte called Trump 'daddy' during the summit and sent him a gushing message praising the US attack on Iran's nuclear sites ahead of the summit. The US president was quick to post the NATO chief's message online. The White House also shared a clip on social media showing Trump's participation in the summit and accompanied by Usher's song 'Daddy's home'.
