U.S. and South African authorities have played a role in spreading false information regarding the termination of funding.
The abundance of myths surrounding the termination of U.S. foreign assistance programs persists. Among them is the prevalent misunderstanding that PEPFAR remains untouched by reductions in American aid. Another common misbelief is that grants are being terminated exclusively in South Africa. Both notions have been perpetuated by statements made by officials from both countries. Spotlight and GroundUp investigate several of the most widespread misunderstandings.
Myth 1: The USAID reductions affect only South Africa.
For certain individuals, the simplified narrative regarding the reduction of U.S. assistance to South Africa goes like this: The South African administration brought Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), accusing it of committing genocide in Gaza. Additionally, they enacted legislation permitting the seizure of property without financial restitution. Influenced by pressure from Afriforum’s advocacy efforts, the United States responded by ending contributions to South Africa through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
The narrative presented here contains elements of truth. On February 7th, President Donald Trump issued an executive order indicating that the US would cease offering aid to South Africa partly due to the aforementioned policy choices.
However, this wasn’t the primary cause behind South Africa losing much of its USAID support. The executive order aimed at South Africa came more than seven days after USAID started halting grants within the nation. Initially, their decision had nothing to do with either South African internal policies or external affairs.
On January 20th, instead, Trump did this: issued an executive order which suspended virtually all international development funding, pending a 90-day review. Soon after, USAID began issuing stop-work orders to its beneficiaries across the world. This included, but was not limited to, recipients in South Africa.
Consequently, United States-funded organizations had to shut down operations worldwide. For example, in war-torn Sudan, where starvation is rampant due to one of the globe’s harshest conflicts, numerous American-supported food centers had to be closed. shut down . In Ethiopia, organisations that provided shelter and therapy to rape survivors were forced to close , while food aid that was destined for that country was left in the port of Djibouti, where it risked rotting before reaching anyone.
In South Africa, the most notable effect of the reductions was that drop-in centres providing HIV testing, treatment and prevention services closed, while USAID-funded staff that worked in government clinics were forced to go home.
All these events happened from late January onward. By the time Trump issued his 7 February executive order targeting Pretoria, there probably weren't many USAID grants in South Africa left to halt.
A little over a month into the 90-day suspension period, the Trump administration said it had concluded its review. The majority of grants did not serve US interests, it decided, and could thus move from being paused to being permanently cancelled. Thus, from late-February, beneficiaries around the world began receiving termination notices. For instance, a US-funded organisation which was supporting 350 000 HIV-positive patients across Eswatini, Tanzania and Lesotho immediately had all of its USAID funding revoked .
A USAID spreadsheet acquired by GroundUp and Spotlight has been obtained by these organizations. first discussed As reported by the New York Times, approximately 86% of all grants have been canceled worldwide; however, the total value of the remaining awards is nearly equivalent to that of the terminated ones. In sum, the expense of all rescinded contracts amounts to more than $75 billion globally (around R1.4 trillion).
Hence, the reduction in U.S. funding is not specific to South Africa alone; these cutbacks are also occurring elsewhere for reasons unrelated to the Expropriation Act, the ICJ case, or Afriforum’s lobbying efforts. These measures—initial suspensions as well as follow-up terminations—are being implemented on a global scale.
Certainly, local conditions might have led USAID to adopt a tougher stance against South Africa concerning contract terminations. According to the USAID spreadsheet, an extremely small portion of grants intended for South Africa has been kept intact. Furthermore, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which provides competitive grants for medical research, plays a role here as well. seems to be heading towards Reducing financial support for clinical trials in South Africa particularly. When compared to numerous countries, South Africa stood to lose significantly due to being one of the leading recipients of U.S. funds allocated for HIV and tuberculosis-related programs.
Although Trump's animosity towards Pretoria might have worsened the reduction in U.S. funding for South Africa, it did not create the issue – this is merely a component of a larger worldwide crisis.
Myth 2: PEPFAR was (or still is) immune to budget reductions for assistance.
Shortly after President Trump issued an executive order halting assistance for 90 days, the U.S. State Department announced a waiver allowing specific critical humanitarian efforts to proceed. According to the State Department, this exemption covered the distribution of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) to individuals living with HIV.
Much of the funding that South Africa receives from the US comes from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which supports HIV-related services. There are two primary US agencies which distribute PEPFAR funds: USAID and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The US embassy in South Africa stated that because of the waiver, PEPFAR-funded organisations which were providing life-saving services would be able to resume their activities. This message was widely disseminated in the press and on social media. For instance, a deputy director-general of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, Clayson Monyela, posted A frequently retweeted post claimed that the US embassy has verified that PEPFAR services will remain unchanged.
However, the assertion made by the US embassy that operations would proceed as normal was incorrect.
A few weeks following the issuance of the waiver, Spotlight and GroundUp examined the condition of various organizations funded by PEPFAR that supplied antiretroviral treatments (ART) to individuals living with HIV—a service specifically detailed within the terms of the waiver. Our investigation revealed that none of them were able to restart activities funded by the U.S.
The sole PEPFAR resources that kept flowing were those managed through the CDC, which was unrelated to the waiver. In contrast, the CDC simply resumed all of its funding after a US court ruled against the freezing of congressional funds. PEPFAR funds distributed by USAID remained frozen, with the waiver offering no respite.
The issue is that unlike what U.S. authorities advised the press Organizations couldn’t immediately return to work just because they provided essential services. They had to obtain approval first. During this period, their finances stayed frozen.
Several organizations in South Africa, such as Engage Men's Health which receives funding from PEPFAR, requested data from USAID, but simply got no response . In other cases, PEPFAR-funded organisations were instructed by USAID to provide revised budgets which only included core services. Many organisations submitted these but never got approval.
By the end of February, USAID moved on from the so-called 90-day suspension period, and simply began terminating grants. Since the waiver only applied to the suspension period, it now had no formal effect. But since Spotlight and GroundUp could not find a single USAID-funded organisation in South Africa that was covered by the waiver, it's not clear that it ever had much of an impact.
At the global level, some organisations reportedly received waivers, but USAID's system for processing invoices and making payments often remained inaccessible , meaning they struggled to get paid.
The Centre for Global Development gathered data on global USAID spending and found The statement indicates that "the waiver process did not influence the release of USAID funds to recipients from the time the spending freeze was announced until the completion of the contract review was declared."
Misconception 3: This is Trump's cash—he can use it however he wants.
In a presentation to Parliament, Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi addressed the PEPFAR funding cuts, stating that "Trump does not owe South Africa [a] cent whatsoever". Meanwhile, Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture Gayton Mckenzie stated That "Trump has the authority to cut the aid; after all, it's his money."
The issue with these claims is that the funds do not belong to Trump personally. The United States does not operate under a feudal monarchical system, nor is Trump its sovereign ruler. Instead, it is the U.S. Congress that has the authority to decide the amount allocated for international assistance as well as the specific objectives for such expenditures. Meanwhile, the responsibility of the U.S. executive branch—including the presidency—is to devise strategies for executing these determinations made by Congress.
A preliminary ruling Issued by a federal court in Washington D.C. on March 10th, this summary addresses the matter at hand. Regarding President Trump’s unilaterally decided termination of assistance, the document notes: “The Executive branch asserts both its constitutional power to decide how allocated monies should be spent,” usurps Congress's exclusive authority to determine whether the funds should be allocated initially [we emphasize].
The legality of the Trump administration's moves may well lead to an extended legal battle, involving administration arguing That its choices stem from its constitutional authority to decide on the allocation of funds. However, for now, South African authorities seem to suggest that Congressional allocations are merely akin to Donald Trump’s personal financial resources.
Additionally, it's worth noting that while the US isn't legally obliged to offer foreign aid, it had signed thousands of contracts with organisations globally, pledging to provide them with billions of dollars over multiple years. If it wished to curtail this support, it could have announced that it would not be renewing these contracts after they expired or provided warning that funding would soon be cut. This is typically how everyone else operates. For instance, the UK and the Netherlands have both announced that they will slash foreign aid, but only from 2027.
Had they received warning, US-funded organisations could have looked for other funding sources or simply arranged for their clients to continue getting support from other institutions once they closed. Instead, the Trump administration chose to send out stop-work orders and termination notifications effective immediately. Consequently, people who relied on US-backed centres for life-saving medical support suddenly had nowhere else to turn. In some cases, HIV patients stopped taking their ARVs .
Of course, one might feel that Motsoaledi's statement about Trump not owing us anything was simply meant to indicate that the South African government isn't entitled to any external support and is thus taking responsibility for the crisis and acting with urgency. But thus far there is no indication that it is doing this.
The crisis began in late January, yet it took the national Department of Health until 3 March just to hold a meeting with recipients of USAID in South Africa. In the meantime, no new money has been allocated to fill the massive hole left by PEPFAR cuts, which are projected to result in hundreds of thousands of fatalities In the coming decade.
Published by Spotlight and GroundUp .
Provided by Syndigate Media Inc. ( Syndigate.info ).
EmoticonEmoticon