As some of the wealthiest men in the world decide to cut American aid to impoverished children globally, they claim there are no negative consequences. “No fatalities have resulted from temporarily pausing to reassess the foreign aid budget,” Elon Musk stated, asserting, “None whatsoever.”
This assertion is far from reality. South Sudan, a nation grappling with poverty, is witnessing alarming consequences from Musk and President Trump’s decisions, with children’s lives already being lost.
Consider Peter Donde, a 10-year-old who contracted HIV from his mother during childbirth. American aid had been a lifeline for Peter, even after his parents fell victim to AIDS. PEPFAR, a program initiated under President George W. Bush, has saved 26 million lives from AIDS, including Peter’s.
Through PEPFAR, healthcare workers ensured that Peter and other AIDS orphans received their medication. However, with the abrupt closure of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) orchestrated by Trump and Musk, albeit perhaps illegally, PEPFAR’s outreach ceased. Orphans like Peter were left to fend for themselves.
Peter, without the assistance of healthcare workers, could not access his medication and succumbed to illness in late February, as reported by Moses Okeny Labani, who coordinated care for Peter and numerous other vulnerable children. The direct cause of Peter’s death was an opportunistic pneumonia infection, which occurred when his viral load rose, and his immune system weakened, Labani explained.
“If USAID were present, Peter Donde would have survived,” Labani stated emphatically.
To gauge the potential fallout from frozen or slashed American humanitarian aid, we collaborated with experts at the Center for Global Development. Their rough estimates suggest an unfolding catastrophe in developing regions.
Achol Deng, an 8-year-old girl born with HIV, also relied on American assistance to stay alive. But when she lost her ID card and had no caseworker to retrieve her medication, she too fell ill and died, Labani recounted.
The consideration might be that stopping aid saves American taxpayer dollars—yet it costs only a mere 12 cents daily for HIV medication to sustain a life.
Labani, unaware of Musk, was surprised to learn about the tech tycoon’s claim that no deaths were occurring due to USAID cutbacks. “That’s incorrect,” he said, baffled that such a perspective could exist. “He should come to the grassroots,” he added.
Another case affected by the aid halt was that of Jennifer Inyaa, a 35-year-old single mother, and her 5-year-old son, Evan Anzoo, both HIV-positive. After the aid was cut off, both mother and son succumbed to illness, as reported by community health worker David Iraa Simon. Decisions made by billionaires far from the ground zero resulted in their deaths.
“Many more will follow in the coming weeks,” warned Margret Amjuma, confirming the deaths of Peter and Achol.
During a nine-day journey across East African villages, I repeatedly heard that while people are already perishing due to decisions made in Washington, the toll is expected to climb as medication stockpiles diminish, and people grow weaker.
For women like Martha Juan, 25, and Viola Kiden, 28, living in remote South Sudan meant no access to antiretrovirals once USAID stopped supplying. Angelina Doki, a health volunteer, confirmed their deaths and feared for her own health as her access to antiretrovirals was depleting.
“I will develop the virus,” Doki lamented, forecasting the grim reality ahead should her viral load spike and cause severe infections. “We are going to die.”
In South Africa, where millions are HIV-positive, the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation predicts that ending PEPFAR would result in over 600,000 deaths across a decade.
You might ask why it’s America’s responsibility to protect children in impoverished countries. The argument can be twofold. Firstly, USAID advances American interests alongside values. Undermining it would see the US losing influence, paving the way for China to step in and become a predominant force, as seen in Cambodia and potentially elsewhere in Africa and the South Pacific.
Secondly, it’s a moral responsibility. For an investment of 0.24% of gross national income in humanitarian aid, the US preemptively stops global health crises that could spill back onto American shores, saving significant lives and costs, such as those incurred from drug-resistant tuberculosis.
Moreover, the modest public investment fosters a vast global goodwill, esteemed much like a firefighter’s heroic lifesaving deeds.
And then, consider malnutrition issues, especially grim near the Sudan-South Sudan border, where a nutrition program that once regularly delivered critical supplements ceased due to aid cuts. Now in villages like Bobonis, children languish without nourishment, unable to fend off even minor illnesses.
I met Fatima Abdulai, 14, caring for her malnourished niece Nadia, with food being a mere daily ration of sorghum mush. Without USAID’s nutrition support, these children face heightened mortality risks, exacerbated by other widespread illnesses.
The war-torn regions have exacerbated the plight; refugees, many who are rape victims, find themselves stripped of critical health services like those provided by American aid-backed nonprofits that faced closures. What unfolds is a bleak testament to how strategic moral diplomacy was auctioned off for bureaucratic reform.
Bono, a prominent advocate against global poverty, described the neglect of PEPFAR and USAID as America’s grand self-sabotage. He highlights how, despite flaws, this setup was a poetic display of policy in action.
Despite closing the clinics and aid programs that brought hope and health, local leaders like James Garang Deng continued thanking America, unaware of impending aid shutdowns led by leaders in Washington—potential lifeline that averted maternal and child fatalities, now erased.
While Trump and Musk criticized USAID for inefficiencies, families await justice as their dismantling of aid, while touted as necessary reforms, leaves countless impoverished lives in jeopardy.
If you’re moved to action, consider Helen Keller Intl for its impactful nutrition and blindness efforts or the ONE Campaign for advocacy to reverse policy shifts.
Although we cannot save every vulnerable child, knowing that American assistance, worth only 24 cents per $100 of national income, saves countless lives can and should inspire advocacy and reform, not abolition. When faced with stark, personal tragedies and children enduring premature deaths, how can one remain indifferent to the profound human cost?
