View previous stories
	Afghan women face "erasure from public life" three years since Taliban takeover by UN Women, agencies   Mar. 2025   As new school year starts in Afghanistan, almost 400,000 more girls deprived of their right to education, bringing total to 2.2 million.   Statement by UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell on the third anniversary of the ban on secondary education for girls in Afghanistan:   “As a new school year begins in Afghanistan, it marks three years since the start of the ban on girls' secondary education. This decision continues to harm the future of millions of Afghan girls. If this ban persists until 2030, over four million girls will have been deprived of their right to education beyond primary school.   “The consequences for these girls - and for Afghanistan - are catastrophic. The ban negatively impacts the health system, the economy, and the future of the nation. With fewer girls receiving an education, girls face a higher risk of child marriage with negative repercussions on their well-being and health.   “In addition, the country will experience a shortage of qualified female health workers. This will endanger lives. "With fewer female doctors and midwives, girls and women will not receive the medical treatment and support they need. We are estimating an additional 1,600 maternal deaths and over 3,500 infant deaths. These are not just numbers, they represent lives lost and families shattered.   “For over three years, the rights of girls in Afghanistan have been violated. All girls must be allowed to return to school now. If these capable, bright young girls continue to be denied an education, then the repercussions will last for generations. Afghanistan cannot leave half of its population behind.   “At UNICEF, we remain unwavering in our commitment to Afghan children – girls and boys. Despite the ban, we have provided access to education for 445,000 children through community-based learning—64 per cent of whom are girls. We are also empowering female teachers to ensure that girls have positive role models.   “We will continue to advocate for the right of every Afghan girl to receive an education, and we urge the de facto authorities to lift this ban immediately. Education is not just a fundamental right; it is the pathway to a healthier, more stable, and prosperous society.”   http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/new-school-year-starts-afghanistan-almost-400000-more-girls-deprived-their-right   Dec. 2024   Afghanistan: Ban on women medical training must be repealed. (OHCHR)   The ban against women in Afghanistan attending classes at private medical institutions is yet another direct blow by the de facto authorities against Afghan women and girls. It is the latest in a long string of State-sponsored discriminatory measures targeting women and girls in the fields of education, work and others – hijacking the future of the country.   The measure is profoundly discriminatory, short-sighted and puts the lives of women and girls at risk in multiple ways. It removes the only remaining path for women and girls towards higher education and will decimate the already inadequate supply of female midwives, nurses and doctors.   This decision will limit women and girls’ already precarious access to healthcare, as male medical staff are prohibited from treating women unless a male relative is present. Afghanistan already has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the world. Women’s presence in the health sector is crucial.   All these measures, taken by men with absolute lack of transparency and without any involvement of those concerned, are clearly aimed at excluding women and girls from public life.   Afghanistan’s de facto authorities hold the effective power and responsibility for the welfare, security, and safety of the entire population.   UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk urges the de facto authorities to repeal this harmful directive. It is high time women and girls’ human rights are ensured, in line with Afghanistan’s international human rights obligations.   Samira Hamidi, an Afghan activist and campaigner for Amnesty International, said: “This is an outrageous act of ignorance by the Taliban, who continue to lead a war against women and girls in Afghanistan. This draconian action will have a devastating long-term impact on the lives of millions of Afghans, especially women and girls.   “In a country like Afghanistan, where people are bound to traditional and cultural practices, women in most parts of the country are not allowed to be checked or treated by a male doctor.   “With this ban, it will mean there will be no more midwives, nurses, female lab and medical personnel to serve female patients,” she said.   Heather Barr, at Human Rights Watch, said: “If you ban women from being treated by male healthcare professionals, and then you ban women from training to become healthcare professionals, the consequences are clear: women will not have access to healthcare and will die as a result.”   * Afghanistan already suffers from one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world and there are deep concerns that that the ban would further erode women’s precarious access to healthcare.   * IPC Afghanistan: Acute Food Insecurity Situation projects for the period (November 2024 to March 2025), which coincides with the peak of the lean season, will see 14.8 million people (32 percent of the total population) classified in IPC Phase 3 or above (Crisis or worse). Nearly 3.5 million children, aged 6 to 59 months, are suffering or projected to suffer acute malnutrition between June 2024 and May 2025 and require urgent interventions. This includes 867,300 cases of severe acute malnutrition (SAM) and almost 2.6 million cases of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM). Additionally, 1.2 million pregnant and breastfeeding women are expected to suffer acute malnutrition in the same period: http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1159434/   http://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-afghanistan http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/12/afghanistan-ban-women-medical-training-must-be-repealed http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/statement-unicef-executive-director-catherine-russell-reported-restrictions-Afghanistan http://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1157866 http://www.msf.org/excluding-women-medical-institutes-threatens-future-healthcare-afghanistan http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/dec/06/taliban-afghanistan-ban-women-training-nurses-midwives-outrageous-act-ignorance-human-rights-healthcare http://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/03/afghanistans-taliban-ban-medical-training-women http://www.ohchr.org/en/statements-and-speeches/2024/12/afghanistan-licenses-ngos-must-not-be-revoked http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/08/new-morality-law-affirms-talibans-regressive-agenda-experts-call-concerted http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/gender-apartheid-must-be-recognised-crime-against-humanity-un-experts-say http://www.ohchr.org/en/special-procedures/sr-afghanistan   28 Aug. 2024   UN Women deeply concerned by new Afghanistan morality law   UN Women is deeply concerned about the recent enactment of a morality law by the de facto authorities in Afghanistan, which imposes extensive restrictions on personal behaviour, effectively erasing women from public life and granting broad enforcement powers to the morality police.   On 21 August 2024, the de facto authorities announced the ratification of a detailed “Law on the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice,” which imposes extensive restrictions on the Afghan population. This law significantly deepens the already severe curtailment of the rights of Afghan women and girls, including requirements for women to cover their entire bodies and faces, and it forbids women’s voices in public.   Women are also prohibited from interacting with non-Muslims, using public transport alone, and looking at men to whom they are not related by blood or marriage.   Over the past three years, since their takeover of Afghanistan, the de facto authorities have subjected Afghan women and girls to more than 70 edicts, directives, and decrees stripping them of fundamental rights. UN Women data shows that these restrictions are having dire impacts in the lives of Afghan women and girls.   For example, only 1 per cent of women surveyed feel like they have influence over decision-making in their communities; 64 per cent indicate that they do not feel safe leaving their homes by themselves compared to 2 per cent of men; and 8 per cent indicate knowing at least one woman or girl who has attempted suicide since August 2021.   These oppressive laws and policies must be immediately reversed, and the de facto authorities must adhere to their obligations under international law to ensure the full rights of all women and girls.   UN Women stands in unwavering solidarity with every Afghan woman and girl subjected to these measures and we will continue to work with our partners to support the full realization of their rights.   http://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/statement/2024/08/un-women-deeply-concerned-by-new-afghanistan-morality-law http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2024/08/afghanistan-repressive-law-must-be-immediately-repealed   Aug. 2024   Press briefing at the United Nations by UN Women Country Representative in Afghanistan, Alison Davidian, on the three-year mark of the Taliban takeover:   "I’ve just come back from the north of Afghanistan. I asked the women I met what they want the world to know about their lives.   One woman, Nasima told me this: “I was married at 16. I couldn’t finish school. My hope was that my daughter’s life would be better. Now I’m worried her life is going to be worse. To those who are still listening to our voices, please help us fight for our freedom.”   This week marks three years since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan.   Three years’ worth of countless decrees, directives, and statements targeting women and girls – stripping them of their fundamental rights. Eviscerating their autonomy.   Our latest publication, shows trends based on rounds of consultations we’ve done with thousands of Afghan women, from the provincial capitals to the most rural areas since August 2021.   One of the first, most striking, trends is the erasure of Afghan women from public life.   To date, no woman in Afghanistan is in a leadership position anywhere that has influence politically, at the national or provincial level. When Afghan women are engaged in the Taliban’s structures, their roles are largely about monitoring compliance of other women with their discriminatory decrees.   This political erasure is mirrored at the social level. Our data shows that when you take away basic rights, it impacts every area of life. Of the women we surveyed, 98 per cent felt they had limited or zero influence on decision-making in their communities.   It is also reflected in the home. Our data shows that the percentage of women who feel they can influence decision-making at the household level has dropped by nearly 60 per cent over the last year. To give some context, three years ago an Afghan women could technically decide to run for President. Now, she may not even be able to decide when to go and buy groceries.   It wasn’t perfect three years ago. But it wasn’t this. Linked to the loss of rights, our data points to an escalating mental health crisis. Sixty-eight per cent of the women we consulted report “bad” or “very bad” mental health. And 8 per cent indicated knowing at least one women or girl who had attempted suicide.   What is also clear three years in, is that the Taliban’s restrictions on the rights of women and girls will affect generations to come.   Our analysis shows that by 2026, the impact of leaving 1.1 million girls out of school and over 100,000 women out of university is correlated with an increase in the rate of early childbearing by 45 per cent; and an increased risk of maternal mortality by at least 50 per cent.   In the face of this deepening women’s rights crisis, I am often asked: what can we do to support Afghan women and girls?   My answer is always this one key thing.   We must continue to invest in women. Nothing undermines the Taliban’s vision for society more than empowering the very part of the population they seek to oppress.   Practically, based on UN Women’s work over the past three years, investing in women translates into three main strategies:   Allocate flexible and long-term funding to grassroots women’s organizations. This is one of the most effective ways to reach women and girls, respond to their needs, and invest in one of the few sectors where women can still influence decision-making. It’s hard, but it’s possible.   Design programmes dedicated to countering the erasure of women and girls, investing directly in their resilience, empowerment, and leadership. Initiatives particularly for education, livelihoods, and entrepreneurship are crucial ways to meaningfully address structural drivers of gender inequality.   Finally, it is essential to facilitate spaces where Afghan women can express their concerns and priorities directly. Our data shows that Afghan women want to represent themselves. But one meeting and one participation option will not do. Across any engagement, we need to ask: How can we consult and include Afghan women? What can we do differently to break the pattern of women’s exclusion?   Three years ago, the whole world was watching a takeover that was livestreaming horror. Three years later, while the world’s attention may have turned elsewhere, the horrors have not stopped for Afghan women and girls, nor has their conviction to stand against the oppression.   When it comes to the fight for women’s rights, we are at an inflection point in Afghanistan, but also globally. The world is watching what happens to women and girls in Afghanistan. In some places, it watches to condemn; in others, it watches to emulate the Taliban’s structural oppression.   We cannot leave Afghan women to fight alone. If we do, we have no moral ground to fight for women’s rights anywhere. Their fate determines the fate of women everywhere.   What we do – or fail to do – for Nasima, her daughter, and all Afghan women and girls, is the ultimate test of who we are as a global community and what we stand for.   http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2024/08/resolve-of-afghan-women-in-the-face-of-erasure-three-years-since-the-taliban-takeover http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2024/06/gender-country-profile-afghanistan http://tinyurl.com/3y9ahfwx http://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153151 http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/1000-days-education-equivalent-three-billion-learning-hours-lost-afghan-girls http://www.nrc.no/news/2024/august/3-years-neglect-in-afghanistan/ http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue-101/en http://www.rescue.org/article/millions-afghans-endure-crisis-three-years-after-taliban-takeover http://www.unocha.org/publications/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-humanitarian-needs-and-response-plan-2024-december-2023-endarips http://news.un.org/en/tags/afghanistan http://reliefweb.int/country/afg http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/08/international-community-must-not-normalise-taliban-rule-afghanistan http://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/afghanistan/need-for-an-urgent-rethink-of-international-response-to-the-human http://www.hrw.org/news/2024/08/11/afghanistan-taliban-tighten-grip-3-years-rule Visit the related web page
	Alarming impacts of falling overseas development assistance to world's poorest people by MSF, Amnesty, Center for Global Development   May 2025   The Trump administration’s abrupt, chaotic and sweeping suspension of U.S. foreign aid is placing millions of lives and human rights at risk across the globe.   In its research briefing Lives at Risk, released today, Amnesty International examines how the cuts have halted critical programs across the globe, many of which provided essential health care, food security, shelter, medical services, and humanitarian support for people in extremely vulnerable situations, including women, girls, survivors of sexual violence, and other marginalized groups, as well as refugees and those seeking safety.   The cuts have come in response to the executive order ‘Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid’ issued by President Donald Trump on January 20, 2025, as well as other executive orders that targeted specific groups and programs for cuts.   In his testimony on May 21 and 22 in both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided weak or incomplete answers about the grave human rights impact of the implementation of this order contrary to the evidence gathered by Amnesty and other organizations. He even erroneously asserted there have been no deaths associated with these cuts.   Given the scale of the cuts, the number and extent of robust modeling predicting substantial mortality, and the fact that deaths have been documented already, the assertion that there has not been any death stemming from these cuts defies logic.   “This abrupt decision and chaotic implementation by the Trump administration is reckless and profoundly damaging,” said Amanda Klasing, national director of government relations and advocacy with Amnesty International USA. “The decision to cut these programs so abruptly and in this untransparent manner violates international human rights law which the U.S. is bound by and undermines decades of U.S. leadership in global humanitarian and development efforts.   While U.S. funding over the decades has had a complex relationship with human rights, the scale and suddenness of these current cuts have created a life-threatening vacuum that other governments and aid organizations are not realistically able to fill in the immediate term, violating the rights to life and health, and dignity for millions.”   Two areas in which the cuts have caused significant harm globally are the forced cutbacks to – or complete closing of – programs that ensured health care and treatment to marginalized people and those supporting migrants and people seeking safety in countries around the world.   The rights to life and to health under grave threat   The U.S. government has long been a key funder of global health, investing in HIV prevention, vaccine programs, maternal health, humanitarian relief and more. Since President Trump’s abrupt suspension of aid across multiple countries, many vital health services have been suspended or shut down. For example:   In Guatemala, funding cuts disrupted programs supporting survivors of sexual violence, including nutritional support for pregnant girls who had been raped and medical, psychological, and legal support to help survivors of violence rebuild their lives after abuse. Other cuts were to key HIV services, including prevention and treatment.   In Haiti, health and post-rape services have lost funding including for child survivors of sexual violence. Cuts to HIV funding has left women and girls, and LGBTI people, with reduced access to prevention and treatment.   In South Africa, home to the world’s largest HIV epidemic, funding for HIV prevention and community outreach for orphans and vulnerable children, including for young survivors of rape, was terminated, leaving people without care.   In Syria, some essential services in Al-Hol – a detention camp where 36,000 people, mostly children, are indefinitely and arbitrarily detained for their perceived affiliation with the Islamic State armed group – were suspended. Some ambulance services and health clinics were among the first services cut.   In Yemen, some lifesaving assistance and protection services, including malnutrition treatment to children, pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, safe shelters to survivors of gender-based violence, and healthcare to children suffering from cholera and other illnesses have been shut down.   In South Sudan, projects providing a range of health services including rehabilitation services for victims of armed conflict, clinical services for victims of gender-based violence, psychological support for rape survivors, and emergency nutritional support for children, have been stopped.   People seeking safety left without support around the world   Funding cuts to shelters and groups that provide essential services for migrants, particularly those in dangerous or difficult situations, including refugees, people seeking asylum and internally displaced persons, have been widespread and devastating.   In Afghanistan, 12 out of 23 community resources centers, which provided approximately 120,000 returning and internally displaced Afghans with housing, food assistance, legal assistance and referrals to healthcare providers, have been shut down. Key aid organizations have suspended health and water programs, with disproportionate impacts on women and girls.   In Costa Rica, local organizations helping asylum seekers and migrants, many from neighboring Nicaragua, are forced to scale back or close food, shelter, and psychosocial programs. The funding cuts come as Costa Rica is receiving increased numbers of people seeking safety pushed back from the U.S.-Mexico border.   Along the Haiti–Dominican Republic border, service providers assisting deported individuals have been forced to cut back on aid including food, shelter, and transportation. With Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians in the U.S. set to expire, a likely spike in deportations will overwhelm an already diminished support infrastructure.   In Mexico, funding cuts have led to the suspension of food programs, shelter, and legal support for people seeking safety who are now stranded following the end of asylum at the US-Mexico border. Some shelters and organizations fear they will be shut down completely.   In Myanmar and Thailand, U.S.-funded health and humanitarian programs supporting displaced people and refugees have been suspended or drastically reduced. Clinics in Thai border camps closed abruptly after the stop-work orders, reportedly resulting in preventable deaths.   “The right to seek safety is protected under international law which the United States is bound by,” said Klasing. “These abrupt cuts in funding put that right at risk by undermining the humanitarian support and infrastructure that enables people around the world who have been forcibly displaced to access protection, placing already marginalized people in acute danger. We call on the U.S. government to restore funding immediately.”   The unilateral action to stop funding existing programs and refrain from spending appropriated funds made by the Trump administration bypassed congressional oversight contrary to U.S. law and came alongside a broader rollback of U.S. participation in multilateral institutions, including announcements to defund or withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Human Rights Council, and reassess membership in UNESCO, and UNRWA.   Recommendations   Amnesty International urges the Trump administration to restore foreign assistance, through the waiver process or otherwise, to programs where the chaotic and abrupt cut in funding has harmed human rights and ensure that future aid is administered consistent with human rights law and standards.   Amnesty calls on Congress to continue robust funding of foreign assistance and reject any requests by the administration to codify foreign assistance cuts through rescission and ensure that all U.S. foreign assistance remains consistent with human rights and humanitarian principles and is allocated according to need.   Congress should use all available oversight levers to ensure the administration’s use of foreign assistance does not contribute to human rights harms.   Further, the Trump administration and Congress should work together to ensure that any changes to foreign assistance must be carried out transparently, in consultation with affected communities, civil society, and international partners, and must comply with international human rights law and standards, including the principles of legality, necessity, and non-discrimination.   All states in a position to do so should fulfill their obligations under UN General Assembly Resolution 2626 and subsequent high-level fora by committing at least 0.7% of gross national income to overseas aid without discrimination.   As part of aiming to meet this target, donor states should increase support where possible to help fill critical funding gaps left by the abrupt U.S. aid suspensions and ensure continued progress in realizing economic, social, and cultural rights and effective humanitarian response around the world.   “It is a false choice that the U.S. government has to choose between addressing the economic needs of Americans or the rising cost of living here in the U.S. and development and humanitarian assistance abroad,” said Klasing.   “Foreign assistance represents about one percent of the U.S. budget, and the U.S. has a global responsibility and interest in providing support to the most marginalized. As one of the world’s wealthiest nations with a history of providing the largest amount of foreign assistance, our analysis shows that this chaotic withdrawal from multilateral cooperation is in practice cruel and endangers the lives and rights of millions of people, especially people like women and girls in Afghanistan or refugees on the border of Thailand and Myanmar, children survivors of sexual violence in Haiti, and other marginalized populations already facing crisis. The U.S. government can – and must – do better.”   http://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/lives-at-risk-chaotic-and-abrupt-cuts-to-foreign-aid-put-millions-of-lives-at-risk/ http://reliefweb.int/report/world/lives-risk-chaotic-and-abrupt-cuts-foreign-aid-put-millions-lives-risk http://www.interaction.org/statement/statement-on-the-latest-wave-of-foreign-assistance-terminations/ http://www.mercycorps.org/blog/human-cost-of-foreign-aid-cuts http://www.wfp.org/news/tens-millions-risk-extreme-hunger-and-starvation-unprecedented-funding-crisis-spirals http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/statement-unicef-executive-director-catherine-russell-globalforeign-aid-reductions http://www.acaps.org/en/us-funding-freeze http://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/biggest-ever-aid-cut-g7-members-death-sentence-millions-people-says-oxfam   May 2025   How US Aid Cuts are putting millions of Lives at Risk.   A catastrophe is unfolding in clinics, refugee camps, and conflict zones worldwide, says Farhat Mantoo; Executive Director of Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)/Doctors Without Borders in South Asia writing in The Diplomat.   In a remote health facility in Afghanistan, a young mother clutches her newborn, desperately waiting for the care she and her child so urgently need. But the clinic’s doors may soon close. Like hundreds of other health centers across Afghanistan, this facility is caught in the fallout of abrupt U.S. foreign aid cuts. For this mother, and millions like her in crisis-affected regions, the consequences are immediate and tragic — losing access to essential care at the very moment it is needed most.   In Afghanistan, several international NGOs have been forced to suspend critical health services, from maternal care to tuberculosis (TB) treatment, due to the abrupt termination of U.S.-funded programs. Therapeutic feeding centers in provinces like Badakhshan and Kabul have shut down, leaving malnourished children without care. Key services such as TB treatment, maternal health, mental health, mobile clinics, and vaccination programs have been suspended in multiple provinces, leading to reduced patient care, increased referrals to private (often unaffordable) facilities, and gaps in disease surveillance.   This is not an isolated story. Over the past 100 days, we have witnessed a growing, human-made disaster. The abrupt termination of U.S. foreign aid is dismantling critical health and humanitarian services across the globe, as the United States alone accounted for nearly 40 percent of global humanitarian funding.   While the scale of the U.S. cuts is shocking, it is a part of a wider shift. In the last few months, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Belgium, and the Netherlands have all made significant cuts to their aid budgets.   Programs addressing diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, which have saved millions of lives, are now at risk of collapse. The resulting gaps will be felt most severely by those who already face the greatest challenges to their survival.   At Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)/Doctors Without Borders, we do not accept U.S. government funding, and we continue to run medical humanitarian programs in more than 70 countries. However, we cannot do this alone. We work closely with other health and humanitarian organizations to deliver vital services, and many of our activities involve programs that have been disrupted and, in some contexts, dissipated due to funding cuts.   In our operations across regions where these funding cuts are most profound, we are already witnessing the devastating effects.   The United States has historically been a key contributor to humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan, accounting for 43.9 percent of all reported aid in the country, according to the United Nations. Following the recent aid suspension announced by the Trump administration, over 200 World Health Organization-supported health facilities — previously serving 1.84 million people — have either closed or halted operations. These closures have cut off access to vital services such as vaccinations, maternal care, and child health programs.   The impact is especially severe in northern, western, and northeastern Afghanistan, where more than one-third of clinics have shut down, and an additional 220 facilities are projected to close by June due to ongoing funding gaps. The crisis extends beyond the WHO. Save the Children has shuttered 18 of its 32 clinics, and the Norwegian Refugee Council has closed two community resource centers supporting displaced populations, with two more on the brink of shutting down. Action Against Hunger was forced to halt all U.S.-funded operations in March when the funding was abruptly cut.   In Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar, home to one of the world’s largest refugee camps with 1 million Rohingya refugees, the United States has typically contributed nearly half of the total humanitarian aid allocated to support the refugees, amounting to approximately $300 million in 2024. Around 48 health facilities, including 11 primary care centers, have been affected by aid cuts, resulting in many refugees being left without access to essential healthcare services, according to the International Rescue Committee. As per the Inter-Sector Coordination Group, which oversees NGO activities in Cox’s Bazar, disruptions in healthcare services have impacted roughly 300,000 refugees.   MSF teams in more than 20 countries have reported concerns with disrupted or suspended sexual and reproductive health (SRH) programs, which MSF relies on for referrals for medical emergencies, supplies, and technical partnerships. These include contexts with already high levels of maternal and infant mortality. In Cox’s Bazar, MSF teams report that other implementers are not able to provide SRH supplies, like emergency birth kits and contraceptives. Referrals for medical emergencies, like post-abortion care, have also been disrupted, increasing urgent needs for SRH care in the region.   In Pakistan, the pause on U.S. foreign assistance would affect 1.7 million people, including 1.2 million Afghan refugees, who would be cut off from lifesaving sexual and reproductive health services with the closure of over 60 facilities, according to the U.N.   Cuts to President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and USAID have led to suspensions and closures of HIV programs in countries, including South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe — threatening the lives of people receiving antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. South Africa’s pioneering Treatment Action Campaign — which helped transform the country’s response to HIV/AIDS — has had to drastically reduce its community-led monitoring system that helps ensure that people stay on treatment. The monitoring is now only happening on a small scale at clinics.   The reported decision of the U.S. government to end its support for Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which was set up 25 years ago to increase access to vaccines for the world’s poorest countries, will have devastating consequences for children across the globe. As per Gavi’s own estimates, the loss of U.S. support to Gavi is projected to deny approximately 75 million children routine vaccinations in the next five years, with more than 1.2 million children potentially dying as a result.   The United Nations has warned that these funding cuts are disrupting global childhood immunization efforts almost as severely as the COVID-19 pandemic did. Millions of children are now missing routine vaccinations, heightening the risk of outbreaks of preventable diseases such as measles, polio, and diphtheria.   For more than 50 years, we have been vaccinating children who live in some of the world’s hardest-to-reach areas, including war zones, refugee camps, and rural areas cut off from health care. This decision will risk leaving these children unprotected. While we do not accept Gavi funding and will not be directly affected by cuts to the program, more than half of the vaccines we use in our projects come from ministries of health and are procured through Gavi.   We are standing at a perilous crossroads where political agendas and funding decisions are dismantling lifelines for millions. The erosion of humanitarian aid is not a future threat — it is a present catastrophe unfolding in clinics, refugee camps, and conflict zones worldwide. We cannot allow narrow national interests and harmful narratives to dictate who lives and who is left to suffer.   The international community — governments, donors, and citizens alike — must reaffirm an unwavering commitment to humanity. This means urgently restoring and protecting funding for essential health and humanitarian services, shielding vulnerable communities from the fallout of political decisions, and upholding the principles of impartiality, dignity, and care. Silence and inaction will cost lives. Now is the time to stand in solidarity, to demand that humanitarian aid remains a beacon of hope, not a tool of politics. The world must not turn its back on those who need us most.   http://www.msf.org/after-first-100-days-us-aid-budget-cuts http://msf.org.au/event/navigating-global-pressures-humanitarian-aid-impacts-msf-and-our-response/recording http://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/news/2025/04/105810/millions-will-die-funding-cuts-says-un-aid-chief http://humanitarianaction.info/document/us-funding-freeze-global-survey http://reliefweb.int/report/world/children-facing-extreme-hunger-crisis-put-risk-aid-cuts-clinics-close http://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2025/05/two-drops-of-life-for-me-aid-gamechanger/ http://www.one.org/us/stories/cost-of-cuts/ http://www.wvi.org/publication/world-refugee-day/report-ration-cuts-2025 http://www.justsecurity.org/114839/us-foreign-aid-cuts-world-must-respond/   Feb. 2025   Which Countries are most exposed to US Aid Cuts; and what other providers can do, by Ian Mitchell and Sam Hughes from the Center for Global Development.   While it is still unclear how long the current freeze on US foreign aid will last, it seems the US, under the second Trump administration, may be ready to abandon its role as a lead aid provider. If so—other countries will need to step up.   Here, we look at which countries will feel the biggest impacts according to the latest data. We put US support in context of countries’ own incomes, and how much support they received from other donor countries.   If USAID funding were paused for a year, the resulting shock would exceed 1 percent of GNI in 23 economies, with eight experiencing a devastating hit of 3 percent or more. Eight low-income countries and eight lower-middle income countries face losing over a fifth of the total foreign assistance they receive.   With USAID freezing funds and repatriating staff, there is an immediate need for other donors—particularly Germany but also Canada, Japan and Sweden—to take the US’s place as lead provider in the most exposed countries. Others, including China, Spain and the UK should bring forward their plans to increase assistance to to prevent lives from being lost and fragile states from further destabilsation.   Should the US fully turn away from the world’s poorest countries, the effect on extremely poor people will be devastating. For governments prepared to commit a modest share of taxpayer revenue to saving lives, averting malnutrition, and maintaining stability, this is a moment to step up. Aid budgets must be reoriented towards the poorest countries—before the cost of inaction becomes irreversible.   Hope for the best, plan for the worst   At the moment of writing, the Trump administration has curbed the work of USAID—the world’s largest development agency—having issued stop-work orders affecting programming around the world and recalling thousands of country-based staff to Washington. Countries around the world would be wise to act now in response to a less globally engaged United States.   The US not been a generous aid donor relative to its income since the 1960s; but it has always been the largest in absolute terms. Relative to other providers, a major feature of US support is that it has tended to focus on the poorest countries.   How do we assess recipient exposure?   We look at vulnerable low- and lower-middle income aid recipient countries who are exposed to USAID cuts: either because a large share of their total aid comes from USAID (over a fifth), or because they receive a large amount of aid relative to their Gross National Income (GNI). We calculate these metrics for all aid recipient countries (alongside additional information such as the amount of aid they receive per person) but focus here on the 26 low-income countries (LICs) and 51 lower middle-income countries (LMICs). For each recipient country, we also identify its largest non-US provider of development assistance to indicate who is now best-placed to take a lead role among providers.   There are several other factors that development agencies can and should consider in a more careful analysis. In particular, humanitarian needs may be more pressing; there may providers that do not report to the OECD; and there may be sector impacts, and exemptions, that shape the impact of US’s aid freeze. Still, we hope that this analysis will inform planning.   Which countries are most exposed?   Of the 26 poorest countries in the world, we identify eight where over a fifth of their assistance comes from USAID—specifically, South Sudan, Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Uganda and Ethiopia. In all but two of these countries USAID’s focus is categorized as “emergency response”—albeit for relatively protracted crises. This suggests aid is being used to address acute needs within these countries. In Liberia, basic health is the main sector while in Uganda it is population and reproductive health.   The economies of these eight low-income countries are so small that aid makes up an average of 11 percent of their total income (based on available GNI data for seven countries). With USAID providing 30 percent of that support, the freeze could create a shortfall equivalent to over 3 percent of GNI—a potentially major economic shock for countries that are home to 410 million people. For context, low income countries grew by just 3 percent in 2023, and are estimated to have grown 3.6% in 2024.   Many lower income countries that receive US support are all already relatively under-aided—LICs received $71 of Official Development Assistance (ODA) per person on average in 2023.   With potential USAID reductions; several other poorly supported countries would see support under $60 of ODA per person: Madagascar, Burundi, Niger, Mali and Chad (or $150 per person in extreme poverty given a poverty rate of over 40 percent). To put this in context, if total ODA ($223bn) were shared among the nearly 700m extreme poor, they would receive over $300 per person per year.   Looking at the group of lower-middle income countries; a further eight rely on USAID for a fifth of their support: Haiti, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Honduras, Angola, Jordan and Eswatini. These countries have widely differing circumstances. Haiti faces major humanitarian needs while others see the US focus on population and reproductive health. In Jordan and Honduras, it is “general government and civil society” support, while Angola receives basic health support.   The above analysis focuses on support funded through USAID, but the spending freeze applies to much of the foreign aid provided through other agencies including the State Department.   This would mean another three low-income countries—Mozambique, Malawi, and Niger—and a further five LMICs—Lebanon, Zambia, Micronesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria—could lose a fifth of their overseas support.   If USAID’s freeze went on for a year it would leave twenty-three economies facing at least a 1 percent economic shock (sixteen LICs and seven LMICs). Eight of these would face at least a 3 percent blow: South Sudan (9 percent), Somalia (9 percent), Afghanistan (7 percent), Liberia (4 percent), Syria (5 percent), the Central African Republic (4 percent), Yemen (4 percent), and Micronesia (3 percent).   Aid is an important contributor to economies in lower-income countries. Sometimes it does not score formally in countries GN—it is rarely provided directly to recipient governments and goods or services may be supplied by contractors from elsewhere . At the same time, aid often funds services that generate economic benefits far beyond their initial cost—for example, health spending that enables people to work and contribute to the economy. Looking at ODA as share of GNI then is a reasonable guide to the economic impact...   Who could step up?   US support is too large to be fully replaced, but other providers’ ODA budgets could be refocused and at least some of the worst effects could be somewhat ameliorated..   The US’s absence should encourage other provider countries to step up too. China pledged last autumn to increase its support for Africa to over $50 billion across three years and could potentially bring forward plans; and increase the share of grants over loans. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been ODA providers in the past; and each is now the lead provider in several lower income countries.   President Trump appears prepared to turn the US inward, while using its power to force concessions from others. Leaders have already capitulated and appear increasingly wary of criticizing the US approach. Still, that does not mean that countries should follow the US lead. Should the US government curb support for the poorest countries in the longer term, we urge other providers to respond by being willing to re-target aid where it is needed most; make the case for helping others, and ensure aid is focused on impact.   http://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-are-most-exposed-us-aid-cuts-and-what-other-providers-can-do http://www.cgdev.org/publication/future-us-foreign-assistance-how-low-can-they-go http://www.cgdev.org/blog/which-countries-will-be-hit-hardest-us-remittance-tax http://www.cgdev.org/blog/mandela-told-uk-people-could-eradicate-poverty-only-if-they-target-it http://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/news/2025/04/105810/millions-will-die-funding-cuts-says-un-aid-chief http://humanitarianaction.info/document/us-funding-freeze-global-survey   http://www.interaction.org/statement/statement-on-the-latest-wave-of-foreign-assistance-terminations/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/as-u-s-foreign-aid-drops-united-nations-agencies-that-provide-aid-worldwide-slash-jobs-or-cut-costs http://www.wfp.org/news/tens-millions-risk-extreme-hunger-and-starvation-unprecedented-funding-crisis-spirals http://reliefweb.int/report/world/food-security-impact-reduction-wfp-funding http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/statement-unicef-executive-director-catherine-russell-globalforeign-aid-reductions http://www.unicef.org/press-releases/least-14-million-children-face-disruptions-critical-nutrition-services-2025-unicef http://reliefweb.int/report/world/children-facing-extreme-hunger-crisis-put-risk-aid-cuts-clinics-close http://alliancecpha.org/en/brief-global-impact-funding-cuts-children   http://www.oxfamamerica.org/press/trump-administration-plan-for-future-of-foreign-aid-will-cause-further-suffering-oxfam/ http://www.acaps.org/en/us-funding-freeze http://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing-notes/unhcr-funding-crunch-increases-risks-violence-danger-and-death-refugees http://www.msf.org/after-first-100-days-us-aid-budget-cuts http://www.who.int/publications/m/item/the-impact-of-suspensions-and-reductions-in-health-official-development-assistance-on-health-systems http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01191-z http://www.icvanetwork.org/90-day-suspension-order-resources/ http://www.icvanetwork.org/uploads/2025/03/Lives-on-the-Line-Final-Report.pdf   http://www.ids.ac.uk/opinions/the-turbulence-and-the-toll-of-the-usaid-freeze/ http://www.ids.ac.uk/news/podcast-the-empathy-fix-why-poverty-persists-and-how-to-change-it/ http://odi.org/en/insights/think-change-episode-65-what-are-the-costs-and-impacts-of-shutting-down-usaid/ http://odi.org/en/insights/myanmar-microcosm-aid-cuts-humanitarian-choices/ http://odi.org/en/topics/the-future-of-aid/ http://www.unhcr.org/news/press-releases/bangladesh-unhcr-s-grandi-calls-sustained-support-and-solutions-rohingya http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/mar/05/refugees-clashes-police-kakuma-camp-kenya-protests-cuts-wfp-unhcr-food-aid-us-freeze http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/feb/21/aid-groups-axe-jobs-trump-freeze http://www.context.news/money-power-people/usaid-cuts-the-effects-of-halting-antiretroviral-therapy-for-hiv http://www.context.news/in-focus/usaid-freeze-millions-in-need-and-global-aid-system-in-turmoil http://reliefweb.int/report/world/more-unkind-and-unsafe-world http://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2025/05/two-drops-of-life-for-me-aid-gamechanger/ http://www.mercycorps.org/petition/urge-congress-defend-lifesaving-foreign-aid
	View more stories