Rubio Rejects Claims That Aid Reductions Led to Nearly 300,000 Deaths

FILE – U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks during a press briefing in Washington, D.C., defending sweeping cuts to foreign aid programs.

Mogadishu (AX) — U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has recently found himself at the center of a storm, facing increasing backlash from health experts and humanitarian organizations over his defense of substantial reductions in foreign aid. During a congressional hearing on May 21, Rubio made a contentious claim: “No one has died because of USAID”— a statement quickly challenged by Rep. Brad Sherman. This moment raised a compelling question: Can politicians truly grasp the real-world implications of their decisions?

As Sherman’s staff displayed haunting images of individuals allegedly impacted by the aid cuts, Rubio responded with a sharp rebuttal, labeling the claims as “that’s a lie.” These comments came amidst discussions surrounding the Trump administration’s controversial choice to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and to freeze over 90% of its foreign aid initiatives earlier this year. But, is it sensible to dismiss the consequences that rippled from such sweeping policy changes?

Humanitarian groups, along with global health researchers, have been quick to push back against Rubio’s assertions. Research conducted by Boston University’s infectious disease team reveals a staggering reality: approximately 96,000 adults and 200,000 children have died since January due to interruptions in services that were reliant on U.S. funding. As the data suggests, the death toll continues to climb, claiming more than 100 lives every hour, predominantly due to the loss of treatment for pervasive diseases like HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, as well as malnutrition. Can we really disregard these numbers as mere statistics?

Consider the heart-wrenching story of 7-year-old Babagana Bukar Mohammed from Nigeria. In February, Babagana tragically lost his life after being turned away from a USAID-funded clinic that had, only days earlier, received a stop-work order. His mother, Mariam Mohammed, faced the unbearable reality of not having the financial means for alternative treatment. Although the clinic resumed operations in April, it was simply too late to save her son. Each story like this amplifies the very human impact of policy changes. How many more lives hang in the balance?

Unfortunately, Babagana’s plight is not an isolated incident. In South Sudan, both 5-year-old Evan Anzoo and his HIV-positive mother succumbed after their antiretroviral treatment was abruptly cut. In Myanmar, a 71-year-old refugee named Pe Kha Lau lost his life after being discharged from a U.S.-funded hospital—also shut down without warning. These narratives represent the silent suffering of countless families. Are we prepared to accept this as an acceptable outcome?

Despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary, Rubio maintains that these aid restructurings are fundamental to a broader strategy intended to align foreign assistance more closely with American national interests. During the same hearing, he emphasized, “Foreign aid is not charity. It exists to advance the national interest of the United States.” This stance invites reflection: at what point do humanitarian needs take precedence over geopolitical strategies?

Rubio has called for a comprehensive audit of all State Department expenditures, asserting that future foreign aid must demonstrate explicit benefits for the U.S. This approach poses a pressing concern for nations that have historically relied on U.S. support, such as Somalia. What does this mean for the millions who depend on timely assistance for their very survival?

The manner in which these cuts have been implemented has drawn significant ire. Health systems across Africa and Southeast Asia—often sustained by USAID funding—were disrupted without preparation or alternative plans. An internal memo from Nicholas Enrich, an acting administrator at USAID, cautioned that the freeze could generate an estimated 12.5 million new malaria cases, potentially leading to an additional 166,000 deaths annually, alongside 200,000 new cases of polio. The chilling ramifications beg the question: where is the moral compass guiding these decisions?

Mariam Mohammed, now solely responsible for her surviving son Umar—who, like his late brother, battles sickle cell disease—relies on the clinic, which she describes as her lifeline. “My only wish is that these clinics stay open,” she shared, encapsulating the desperation influenced by policy choices at the highest levels. As these stories surface, we must ask ourselves: how do we reconcile our national interests with humanity’s pressing needs?

In 2024, the United States provided nearly 40% of the global humanitarian aid coordinated by the United Nations. As the leading donor begins to shift its focus away from humanitarian imperatives toward political agendas, aid organizations warn of an escalating human toll. With each decision made in the corridors of power, we must remain vigilant, for the human cost hangs in precarious balance.

Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.

This version maintains a professional yet approachable tone, weaving in emotional depth and thought-provoking questions while ensuring a clear and engaging flow throughout.