SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
usaid
‘Children Died Waiting’ After Trump Freeze of USAID Operations Stranded Medications
"Shame," said one Democratic senator. "This is not leadership. This is callous arrogance."
Sep 30, 2025
An investigation published Tuesday reveals how the Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid—even those that have been quickly restored under public pressure—have proven deadly for children in poverty-stricken nations.
The halting of a global supply chain program that ships crucial antimalarial and HIV medications around the world was one of President Donald Trump's first actions, as Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that many of the programs run by the US Agency for International Development "run counter to what we’re trying to do in our national strategy" and moved to end USAID's operations.
Portions of the Global Health Supply Chain Program resumed within days of Trump's executive order suspending foreign aid, but as The Washington Post reported in its exclusive investigation, "the suspension had lingering effects that left aid deliveries severely disrupted for months" and severely reduced public health workers' ability to distribute lifesaving medications, screening tests, and other supplies to more than 40 countries.
While more than $190 million worth of anti-HIV/AIDS and antimalarial supplies were scheduled to arrive at distribution warehouses by the end of June, nearly $76 million did not arrive, including a majority of the medications to fight malaria.
Medical supplies worth $63 million did eventually make it to warehouses, but were delayed by 41 days on average, and many sat on warehouse shelves for weeks instead of being sent to clinics and hospitals.
The newspaper told the story of five-year-old Suza Kenyaba, one victim of the delay in the Democratic Republic of Congo, who contracted malaria when the medication supply chain was in a state of chaos due to Trump's order.
"The Trump administration's claim that no one has died from cuts to USAID is devastatingly and disastrously untrue."
The medication the little girl needed was just seven miles away from the clinic where she was battling a high fever caused by the infection, but the disruption to the supply chain program left the medicine stranded in a warehouse.
"The medication that USAID sent was seven miles away due to Trump chaos and suspensions," said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). "It would have saved her life. Shame. This is not leadership. This is callous arrogance."
The Post published its report a week after Rubio appeared on ABC News and told anchor George Stephanopoulos flatly that "no one has died because the United States has cut aid."
The secretary of state claimed—contrary to evidence—that the administration had simply worked to structure programs to make them more efficient.
But as the Post reported, the stop-work order issued by the administration had rippling effects across the foreign aid pipeline. Chemonics, a contractor that operates the Global Health Supply Chain Program, lost access to a government payment system, inhibiting its "ability to order suppliers to resume work.” As a result, it was forced to furlough 750 people in its US workforce as well as lay off local staff.
While Rubio rolled back some of the foreign aid cuts in late January, issuing a blanket waiver for "lifesaving humanitarian assistance," Chemonics' logistics program that delivers medications from local warehouses to clinics like the one where Kenyaba was fighting malaria was not included in the waiver.
The investigation revealed, said one observer, that Trump has the "deaths of children on his hands."
Oxfam America called on Congress to "fund lifesaving aid."
"The Trump administration's claim that no one has died from cuts to USAID is devastatingly and disastrously untrue," said the group. "Their attacks on USAID stranded lifesaving medication and children died waiting."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Lets Trump Withhold $4 Billion in Foreign Aid Approved by Congress
"This result further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order," said one critic.
Sep 26, 2025
The US Supreme Court on Friday gave President Donald Trump the green light to withhold billions of dollars of congressionally approved foreign aid, a major win for the White House and executive authority and, according to critics, a body blow to the bedrock constitutional principle of congressional power of the purse.
At issue in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition is $4 billion in foreign aid allocated by Congress that the Trump administration determined was wasteful, including funding for international public health such as HIV prevention programs, which have been credited with saving millions of lives.
The high court's right-wing majority found that "the asserted harms to the executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm" to aid recipients, while cautioning that "this order should not be read as a final determination on the merits."
BREAKING: Supreme Court lets Trump unilaterally freeze billions in congressionally appropriated foreign aid money apparent 6-3 vote with liberals in dissent @courthousenews.bsky.social
[image or embed]
— Kelsey Reichmann (@kelseyreichmann.bsky.social) September 26, 2025 at 1:43 PM
The Trump administration sought not only validation of its claimed ability to claw back spending previously approved by Congress—which under the Constitution generally holds power of the purse—but also of "pocket recission," a highly contentious budgetary maneuver to cancel previously approved federal expenditures by exploiting legal ambiguity in the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).
Democrats and many legal experts contend that pocket recissions are illegal, and Democratic lawmakers warned even before Trump's White House return that he would try to use the tactic in order to refuse to disburse funds allocated by Congress for social programs.
Justice Elena Kagan—who dissented along with fellow liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson—asserted that the majority approved "essentially a presidential usurpation of Congress' power of the purse."
"The stakes are high: At issue is the allocation of power between the executive and Congress over the expenditure of public monies," Kagan said.
“That is just the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions through the enactment of appropriations laws,” she wrote. “If those laws require obligation of the money, and if Congress has not by rescission or other action relieved the executive of that duty, then the executive must comply.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dealt a temporary blow to Trump's evisceration of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in a ruling that left intact a lower court's decision ordering the resumption of approximately $2 billion in foreign aid frozen by the administration.
Friday's ruling could complicate bipartisan negotiations to avert a Republican government shutdown as the September 30 deadline looms. Democratic negotiators now worry that Trump, buoyed by the high court decision, could again refuse to spend funds designated by Congress.
“Today’s ruling allows the administration to unilaterally refuse to spend $4 billion in foreign assistance funds that it is required by law to spend," said Nicolas Sansone, an attorney at the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and counsel for the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. "This result further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order. It will also have a grave humanitarian impact.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Bid to Block $4.9 Billion With 'Pocket Rescission' Blasted as 'Authoritarianism 101'
"Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar.
Aug 30, 2025
Democracy defenders and members of Congress are condemning US President Donald Trump's effort to use a "pocket rescission" process to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid as authoritarian and illegal.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Friday shared on social media Trump's letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) about the move. According to a White House fact sheet linked in a subsequent post, much of the money was headed for the US Department of State and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which Trump has gutted.
As The Associated Press explained:
The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to September 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.
What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it's a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.
Shortly after the OMB social media posts, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that OMB Director Russ Vought was helping shutter USAID, writing on the platform X: "Since January, we've saved the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. And with a small set of core programs moved over to the State Department, USAID is officially in closeout mode. Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails. Congrats, Russ."
Meanwhile, Rubio's former congressional colleagues and others are sounding the alarm over the administration's effort.
"America is staring down next month's government funding deadline on September 30," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). "It's clear neither Trump nor congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown. With Trump's illegal 'pocket rescission': They seem eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their healthcare costs, compromising essential services, and further damaging our national security."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) also put pressure on GOP lawmakers, saying that "this is wrong—and illegal. Not only is Trump gutting $5 billion in foreign aid that saves lives and advances America's interests, but he's doing so using an unlawful 'pocket recission' method that undermines Congress' power of the purse. I urge my Republican colleagues to say hell no."
While most Republicans on Capitol Hill have backed Trump's endeavors to claw back funding previously appropriated by Congress, GOP Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted against his $9 billion rescission package earlier this year.
Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also spoke out against Trump's new move, noting in a Friday statement that under the US Constitution, Congress has "the power of the purse," and the Government Accountability Office "has concluded that this type of rescission is unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act."
Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a constitutional scholar, similarly stressed that "Congress—and only Congress—passes budgets. Because the president's job is to take care the laws are faithfully executed, he must spend the money as directed. Trump's 'pocket recissions' are lawless and absurd. If a president opposes legislative spending decisions, he can veto them, subject to override, but once passed, he must execute on them."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, declared in a Friday statement that with the pocket rescission move, the Trump administration "demonstrated yet again its contempt for Congress' power of the purse and the Constitution's separation of powers."
"With this Constitution-mocking action, the administration is bringing us closer to a shutdown on September 30, and it doesn't seem to care," Gilbert said. "We call on Congress to push back, pass and abide by appropriations packages, and fight the administration’s illegal impoundments that harm regular Americans."
"This is not just a constitutional crisis, it's a matter of global justice," she added. "The congressionally appropriated funds that the Trump administration illegally aims to cancel support economic development programs to empower the world's most vulnerable and impoverished, and address some of the ravage of catastrophic climate change in developing nations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular