UK and US aid cuts 'may reverse global progress by 30 years'
Davide Rasella, a co-author of the report and researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health, told the BBC that cutting funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) risked 'abruptly halting – and even reversing – two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations'.
READ MORE: Donald Trump to 'visit Turnberry golf course during visit to Scotland'
On January 20, 2025, the Trump administration announced Executive Order 14169, which suspended existing foreign aid programmes, with the exception of military aid and emergency food assistance.
In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that 83% of all USAID programmes would be cut in a bid to slash 'wasteful spending'.
In a post on social media, Rubio claimed that USAID had cost the United States 'tens of billions of dollars' and 'did not serve or in some cases harmed' American national interests.
The new study in the Lancet was based on Rubio's announcement of an 83% reduction in funding, which led researchers to conclude that the cuts would result in more than 2.4 million additional deaths annually.
READ MORE: Scots back independence as Keir Starmer's popularity at record low, new poll finds
The report – which was ultimately funded by the EU, UK, and Spanish governments – found that over the last two decades, USAID support has helped to save over 90 million lives, including over 30 million children, in low-income and middle-income nations.
It stated: 'According to the forecasting models, the current steep funding cuts – coupled with the potential dissolution of the agency – could lead to more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, averaging more than 2-4 million deaths per year.
'These deaths include 4-5 million among children younger than 5 years, or more than 700,000 deaths annually.'
Humanitarian organisations have voiced serious concerns about the lack of notice regarding the cuts. Without adequate time to implement adaptive measures, they warn of 'severe' and 'profound' consequences for public health, economic development and societal stability.
Far-right Tesla chief executive Elon Musk (Image: JIM WATSON, AFP via Getty Images) The cuts to USAID were managed by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) in an attempt to reduce the federal workforce, a move which has been widely condemned by humanitarian organisations worldwide. Musk described the decision as 'tough but necessary'.
The publication of the Lancet report comes as a United Nations aid conference gets underway in Seville. With some 50 world leaders expected to attend to discuss global inequality, the financial loss of USAID is sure to be high on the agenda. The United States, however, is not expected to attend.
President Trump's cuts to USAID have caused a global knock-on effect, with the UK, France, Netherlands and Belgium having unveiled their own cuts to international aid of 40%, 37%, 30%, and 25% respectively.
'These decreases not only threaten to reverse three decades of unprecedented human progress, but also intensifies the extraordinary uncertainty and vulnerability already caused by the ongoing polycrisis,' the study states.
US president Donald TrumpIt further warns that the collective reduction in international funding has the potential to push the sector to the 'brink of collapse'.
The United States had been the leading government donor to humanitarian programmes for the last twenty years, and accounted for 43% of all government humanitarian funding in 2023.
By 2024, USAID was responsible for a 65% reduction in the number of deaths from HIV/AIDS, equating to over 25 million lives saved, the study said.
The United Nations secretary-general Antonio Guterres urged the US government to reconsider, and stated the cuts would make the world 'less healthy, less safe, and less prosperous'.
The USAID began under President John F Kennedy in 1961, who told Congress it was America's 'moral' and 'economic' obligation as a wealthy nation to assist struggling countries across the globe.
Speaking to the Associated Press, former president Barack Obama called the shut down of USAID a 'travesty' and a 'tragedy'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Auto Blog
an hour ago
- Auto Blog
Why Trump Called Japan's Auto Trade With the U.S. ‘Unfair'
View post: Amazon is selling a 'sturdy' $70 tool organizer wall mount for $33, and shoppers say it's the 'best thing ever' Japan and the U.S. don't appear closer to an auto tariff deal President Trump has labeled Japan as engaging in unfair auto trade with the U.S., while also suggesting that Japan should narrow its trade deficit by increasing its imports of American energy resources and other goods. On Sunday, Trump said: 'They won't take our cars, and yet we take millions and millions of their cars into the United States. It's not fair, and I explained that to Japan, and they understand it,' Reuters reports. Trump added: 'We have a big deficit with Japan, and they understand that too. Now we have oil. They could take a lot of oil, they could take a lot of other things.' Previous Pause Next Unmute 0:09 / 0:09 Full screen Honda may move the next-generation Civic production from Mexico to the U.S. Watch More Japan is working to strike a deal with the U.S. to lower auto tariffs and levies on other goods such as steel and aluminum before Trump's July 9 deadline, when the 90-day pause on broad U.S. tariffs expires. The auto sector represented approximately 28% of the total 21 trillion yen ($145 billion) worth of goods Japan exported to the U.S. last year, and Trump will likely maintain 25% tariffs on Japan's vehicle exports after the 90-day pause. Japan and the U.S. agreed to continue talks after Trump's comments aired Sunday on Fox. The most recent discussions between Japan and the U.S. were the two countries' seventh round of negotiations. Vehicles awaiting shipment parked at a port in Yokohama, Japan — Source: Getty In 2024, Japan's trade surplus with the U.S. stood at $59.3 billion, with vehicles and auto parts accounting for roughly 82% of the gap, according to Bloomberg. Japan's deficit with the U.S. is also the seventh-largest among Washington's trading partners. Tokyo's top trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, believes the U.S.'s auto tariffs are unacceptable, given that Japan's auto industry has invested $60 billion in the U.S. economy and created 2.3 million local jobs. Trump also stated that countries charging tariffs of 35% or 40% on U.S. autos would receive the same treatment, up from 25%, Nikkei Asia reports. Analysts have expressed concerns about U.S. autos expanding their presence in Japan Japan doesn't impose any tariffs on vehicle imports, and the U.S. doesn't place tariffs on passenger cars imported into the U.S. through the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The previous U.S. tariff rate on vehicle imports outside of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement was 2.5%. Trump has blamed non-tariff barriers, such as strict fuel economy regulations, for preventing the U.S. from thriving in Japan's auto market. However, analysts have responded that adjusting to Japan's right-hand drive and narrow streets makes expanding in Japan unfeasible for American car manufacturers. Martin Schulz, chief policy economist at Fujitsu's Global Market Intelligence Unit, said: 'What we may see is a framework of an agreement before July 9 with the details filled in later,' according to the South China Morning Post. Autoblog Newsletter Autoblog brings you car news; expert reviews and exciting pictures and video. Research and compare vehicles, too. Sign up or sign in with Google Facebook Microsoft Apple By signing up I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy . You may unsubscribe from email communication at anytime. Ryosei Akazawa, Tokyo's top trade negotiator — Source: Getty Final thoughts Trump recently confirmed that he's not planning on extending the July 9 deadline, placing Japan and many other countries under a significant time crunch to finalize deals. Instead of extending the deadline, Trump noted he'd rather send countries letters saying that negotiations are over, and that trading can continue if tariffs are paid. Trump said, 'I'm going to send letters. I could send one to Japan: 'Dear Mr. Japan, here's the story. You're going to pay a 25% tariff on your cars.'' About the Author Cody Carlson View Profile
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Where is Iran's missing uranium?
Photo by Maxar Technologies If you believe Donald Trump, Iran's nuclear programme was 'completely and totally obliterated' by the US strikes on 21 June. It was a 'spectacular military success', he declared in a live televised address to the nation that evening, 'the likes of which the world has not seen in many, many decades'. Mission accomplished. End of story. Seemingly intractable problem solved. As he put it in a social media post less than 48 hours later: 'CONGRATULATIONS WORLD, IT'S TIME FOR PEACE!' Trump's senior officials rallied behind that assessment, attempting to drown out preliminary intelligence assessments which suggested that, far from being obliterated, Iran's nuclear capabilities had been merely set back by a few months. Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, berated reporters at an early-morning press conference on 25 June, demanding that they credit the president for directing 'the most complex and secretive military operation in history'. 'You want to call it destroyed, you want to call it defeated, you want to call it obliterated – choose your word,' he said. 'This was a historically successful attack.' Instead of 'undermining the success' of the American pilots by daring to question the outcome of the mission, he said journalists should 'wave an American flag, be proud of what we accomplished'. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, weighed in on social media later that day, insisting that 'new intelligence' confirmed that Iran's nuclear facilities 'have been destroyed' and that it would take 'years' for the regime to rebuild. But the problem for the Trump administration – and everyone else who might like to see the end of Iran's nuclear programme – is that the reality is significantly more complicated than the bombast emanating from the White House. It is very likely true that the US strikes seriously damaged the country's three biggest nuclear facilities, perhaps irreparably in the case of the sites at Fordow and Natanz, which were targeted with multiple 30,000-pound 'bunker buster' bombs. Damage, however, is not the same thing as the 'fire and brimstone' the president described. Iran remains capable of producing multiple nuclear devices within a matter of months. Why? Right now, somewherein Iran, there is 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium, which if enriched further to weapons-grade material is enough to make nine or ten nuclear bombs. The uranium has not been seen by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors since 10 June. The 'success' of Trump's strike can be debated, but it's no longer the question shadowing the US, Israel and Iran. The most important question of all, being asked by secret services around the world, is: where has Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium gone? The mystery of the missing uranium has dominated conversations in Washington DC in the days since the strikes after details of a preliminary report by the Defence Intelligence Agency were leaked on 24 June, assessing that the regime had likely moved most of the stockpile ahead of the attack. (The White House press secretary has dismissed the top-secret report as 'flat-out wrong,' noting that it was a 'low-confidence' assessment.) European intelligence agencies have similarly concluded that Iran's uranium stockpile is likely to be largely intact, at least according to early indications. Even JD Vance, Trump's usually combative vice-president, has appeared to concede that the uranium is unaccounted for, telling an interviewer on 22 June that it was 'one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about'. (He hewed closer to the president's line in subsequent interviews, telling Fox News the following day, 'I do think the uranium is buried.') 'There is no real uncertainty as to where Iran's highly enriched uranium was,' James Acton, the co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, told me. 'We know that the highly enriched material is produced at two main centrifuge facilities – Natanz and Fordow – but it was not stored there for very long. It was taken to the tunnels at Isfahan. We know that because the IAEA was there, with inspectors on the ground literally measuring enrichment levels.' (The IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, has confirmed that its inspectors last saw the 400kg stockpile of enriched uranium, which they had verified at regular intervals in recent years as part of a previous international agreement, several days before Israel launched its assault on 13 June. The agency, however, has not publicly confirmed where the inspection took place.) The nuclear facility at Isfahan, the site of Iran's ancient capital, around 440 kilometres south of Tehran, is thought to include an extensive network of tunnels too deep to be targeted even by the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs that were dropped on Natanz and Fordow during the strikes on 21 June. That may explain why the US fired more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles at the facility from a submarine instead. 'There was no attempt made to collapse the tunnels at Isfahan, almost certainly because that attempt would not have been successful,' Acton said. This has left two broad theories as to the fate of Iran's missing uranium. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe The first is that the majority of the enriched uranium was in the tunnels beneath the Isfahan complex all along, with Tehran calculating that the site was deep enough to withstand any impending strikes. Satellite imagery shows heavy vehicles near the entrances to the tunnels in the days before the attack, likely attempting to reinforce them. 'The United States may have tried to collapse the tunnel entrances,' Acton said. 'But while that might block the highly enriched uranium in there temporarily [if it was indeed stored there], it wouldn't actually destroy the material if it was sitting in canisters deep underground.' One key indicator to watch for in the coming days, he told me, would be new satellite imagery showing the Iranians digging out the tunnel entrances at Isfahan. 'That would be very significant.' The second theory is that the canisters of uranium were removed from Isfahan and divided among multiple secret locations in the days before the strikes began. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, had warned in a letter to the UN in May that his country would 'implement special measures' to protect its nuclear materials if it was threatened with military action. And there was plenty of warning that an attack might be coming. Between the start of the Israeli campaign on 13 June and the US strikes on 21 June, Trump publicly weighed the possibility of entering the conflict in a stream of social media posts, in which, among other things, he threatened to assassinate the country's supreme leader and demanded Iran's 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER'. 'Iran was prepared for this contingency, so I think it's likely they had a plan for how and where to move the highly enriched uranium if they thought the strikes were imminent,' Kelsey Davenport, director of non-proliferation policy at the US-based Arms Control Association, told me. Unlike the vast cascades of centrifuges needed for the enrichment process, which are fragile and difficult to move, and were likely destroyed en masse when the US bombed the sites at Fordow and Natanz, the uranium itself is relatively portable. 'The enriched uranium was likely stored in canisters the size of a scuba tank, or a small propane tank,' Davenport explained. 'It doesn't require large vehicles so it can be transported fairly easily, and these small tanks could be dispersed to multiple locations. If Iran did move the material, it would be very difficult to track all of the canisters.' The director general of the IAEA, Rafael Grossi, said after the US strikes that he didn't know if Tehran had moved all its enriched uranium, 'but the evidence points to their moving out a lot of it'. Iran's parliament has since voted to suspend co-operation with the IAEA, ending access for the agency's inspectors. This matters because even if Iran's main facilities were damaged beyond use, rendering further large-scale enrichment unlikely in the short term, they could still decide to enrich their existing stockpile to 90 per cent – or weapons-grade. 'Once you've enriched uranium to 60 per cent, getting to 90 per cent can be done quite quickly,' Davenport said. 'So if Iran has retained even a portion of the 60 per cent enriched uranium, it is well set up to rebuild a nuclear programme and return to the threshold of nuclear weapons quite quickly.' Quite how quickly depends on precisely what Iran has managed to preserve, and how quickly the regime decides to move. 'But if Iran was able to preserve a couple hundred IR-6 centrifuges [the country's most advanced centrifuge] and 120kg of 60 per cent enriched uranium, they could have enough material for roughly two weapons in about three months.' Acton agreed that the Iranians could have a limited enrichment facility within a matter of months. He said that under the Iran deal, known as the JCPOA, negotiated during Barack Obama's presidency, the IAEA was able to count centrifuge components and monitor them. But after Trump withdrew the US from the agreement in 2018, 'the IAEA lost the right to monitor those components and Iran has been stockpiling them', he explained. 'So Iran now has a triad: it has highly enriched uranium, it has centrifuge components, and it has experts.' (Israel claims to have killed at least 11 nuclear scientists during the conflict, but Acton estimated the Iranian programme probably comprised around a thousand scientists, engineers and technicians.) Acton said a small centrifuge facility could be rebuilt in any warehouse so long as it had a steady supply of electricity and the ability to instal the requisite heating and cooling systems. 'They could do that literally in an industrial facility in downtown Tehran.' Iran's nuclear weapons programme was officially suspended in 2003 after the US invaded Iraq. Since then, the regime claims, its nuclear programme has been intended for civilian purposes, although this is disputed by the US and Israel as Iran was enriching uranium to levels far beyond the 5 per cent generally needed for a civilian nuclear reactor. But not building a weapon was a political decision, not an indication of Iran's technical limitations, and that calculus may now change. 'I think the odds of a nuclear-armed Iran have substantially risen as a result of the events of the last two weeks,' Ankit Panda, author of The New Nuclear Age: At the Precipice of Armageddon, told me. 'Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, famously has not authorised a decision to build a bomb, and I think many of those around him in Iran are probably wondering if that was just a terrible, terrible mistake, and if their friends in Pyongyang haven't been right all along.' He agreed that while it would take much longer to rebuild the facilities needed to enrich more uranium from scratch, the Iranians could now choose to sprint for a bomb with their existing stockpile. 'I am worried about a sneak-out scenario, where the Iranians continue to lick their wounds after this devastating war, but quietly continue their work,' Panda said. 'It's a very mountainous country, and there are a lot of underground facilities, potentially including covert facilities we don't know about.' There was a palpable sense of exasperation among the nuclear policy experts who spoke to me for this article. The consensus was that for all the demonstrable success of the recent strikes in blowing up numerous Iranian facilities, this was never a problem with a solely military solution. 'I am angry,' said James Acton. 'I could never tell you that diplomacy was guaranteed to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, but it always seemed to me that it was a much more promising avenue than military action, which has only modestly eroded Iran's capability to build the bomb, while increasing its incentives to do so.' Shortly after our interview, Acton emailed to say that new satellite imagery had just been published showing that the Iranians had already dug out one of the entrances to the tunnel complex at Isfahan, where some of the enriched uranium stockpile could be stored. Construction vehicles were also visible around the Fordow facility. 'That didn't take long,' I remarked. 'It did not,' he replied. [See also: The mutiny against Liz Kendall] Related
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
US tests laser weapons to blast drones from sky
The laser weapons use directed energy to strike drones in the sky and the exercise to test them was dubbed as "the first of its kind" as the US looks to inject tens of billions into its defence plan The US army has tested laser weapons that use directed energy to blast drones from the sky. American troops at Fort Sill, in Oklahoma, used the armoured transport-mounted directed energy (DE) to strike at drones in the sky. The "first of its kind" exercise pitted prototype DE weapons, including a Directed Energy Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (DE M-SHORAD) system, against a swarm of unmanned aircraft systems. The Army's pursuit of DE weapons for air defence stretches back decades, initially focused on strategic missile defence. However, the recent proliferation of inexpensive and readily available drones has shifted the focus to short-range air defence, where lasers and high-powered microwaves offer a potentially game-changing advantage. The US Army said: "This exercise provided a real-world test of the complementary nature of DE and kinetic systems, exploring how they can work together to create a more robust and resilient defence. Col. Steven D. Gutierrez, RCCTO Project Manager for Directed Energy, emphasised the ground-breaking nature of the exercise. 'This live-fire exercise is the first of its kind. "Now, that we have delivered directed energy capabilities to the Army we are developing and maturing the domains of policy, doctrine, organisation, training, and personnel to employ the capability optimally." A US Army spokesperson said: "This exercise represents a crucial step forward, paving the way for a more agile and lethal force ready to meet the evolving challenges of modern warfare." The move comes as Congress moved one step closer to passing President Donald Trump's controversial "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" with $150 billion being funnelled away in funding for the military. Part of this provision is expected to go toward shipbuilding as well as the Golden Dome homeland defence project. The project, modelled on Israel's successful Iron Dome, has not yet been fully defined with critics claiming the Iron Dome is successful as it protects only a small piece of territory compared to the US landmass. But many supporters of the President believe the cost is justified as it will protect the US from any threats from North Korea, China and Russia. Mr Trump previously hailed the project, and admitted it would cost billions of dollars. Speaking in May, he said: "It was called the Iron Dome, but I changed it to the Golden Dome. I thought it was a little more beautiful." The Republican has been keen to emphasise the strength of the US military, telling troops: "We won World War II, and we are now stronger than ever. We want to build a 'golden dome' to protect our skies. We will build the F-47 fighter jet and develop the F-35 fighters."
