USAID cuts may cause over 14 million additional deaths by 2030, study says

USAID cuts may cause over 14 million additional deaths by 2030, study says

By Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and its potential dismantling could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, according to research published in The Lancet medical journal on Monday. WHY IT'S IMPORTANT President Donald Trump's administration, since taking office in January, has made funding cuts to USAID and its aid programs worldwide in what the U.S. government says is part of its broader plan to remove wasteful spending. Human rights experts and advocates have warned against the cuts. USAID funding has had a crucial role in improving global health, primarily directed toward low and middle-income countries, particularly African nations, according to the study. BY THE NUMBERS The study estimated that over the past two decades, USAID-funded programs have prevented more than 91 million deaths globally, including 30 million deaths among children. Projections suggest that ongoing deep funding cuts - combined with the potential dismantling of the agency - could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, including 4.5 million deaths among children younger than 5 years, the study in The Lancet said. Washington is the world's largest humanitarian aid donor, amounting to at least 38% of all contributions recorded by the United Nations. It disbursed $61 billion in foreign assistance last year, just over half of it via USAID, according to government data. KEY QUOTE "Our estimates show that, unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030," the study said. CONTEXT U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in March the Trump administration canceled over 80% of all programs at USAID following a six-week review. The remaining approximately 1,000 programs, he said, would now be administered "more effectively" under the U.S. State Department and in consultation with Congress. (Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington;Editing by Mary Milliken and Jamie Freed)

byAdministrator

in

June 30, 2025

USAID cuts may cause over 14 million additional deaths by 2030, study says

USAID cuts may cause over 14 million additional deaths by 2030, study says By Kanishka Singh WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Deep funding cuts to the ...

Read More

G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program

G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program

By Kanishka Singh and Ismail Shakil WASHINGTON/OTTAWA (Reuters) -Foreign ministers from the Group of Seven nations said on Monday they supported the ceasefire between Israel and Iran and urged for negotiations to resume for a deal to address Iran's nuclear program, according to a joint statement. Since April, Iran and the U.S. have held talks aimed at finding a new diplomatic solution regarding Iran's nuclear program. Tehran says its program is peaceful and Israel and its allies say they want to ensure Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon. "We call for the resumption of negotiations, resulting in a comprehensive, verifiable and durable agreement that addresses Iran's nuclear program," the G7 foreign ministers said. Last week, Trump announced a ceasefire between U.S. ally Israel and its regional rival Iran to halt a war that began on June 13 when Israel attacked Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict had raised alarms in a region already on edge since the start of Israel's war in Gaza in October 2023. Before the ceasefire was announced, Washington struck Iran's nuclear sites and Iran targeted a U.S. base in Qatar in retaliation. The G7 foreign ministers said they urged "all parties to avoid actions that could further destabilize the region." U.S. Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff has said talks between Washington and Tehran were "promising" and that Washington was hopeful for a long-term peace deal. The G7 top diplomats denounced threats against the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Monday, after a hardline Iranian newspaper said IAEA boss Rafael Grossi should be tried and executed as an Israeli agent. On June 12, the U.N. nuclear watchdog's 35-nation Board of Governors declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for the first time in almost 20 years. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country believed to have nuclear weapons and said its war against Iran aimed to prevent Tehran from developing its own nuclear weapons. Iran is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while Israel is not. The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which carries out inspections in Iran, says it has "no credible indication" of an active, coordinated weapons program in Iran. (Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington and Ismail Shakil in Ottawa; Editing by Chris Reese and Lincoln Feast.)

byAdministrator

in

June 30, 2025

G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program

G7 urges talks to resume for deal on Iran nuclear program By Kanishka Singh and Ismail Shakil WASHINGTON/OTTAWA (Reuters) -Foreign minister...

Read More

Who would win and who would lose in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill'

Who would win and who would lose in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill'

Legislation making its waythrough the Senatestands to have wide-ranging effects across the economy — bolstering tax benefits for businesses and higher-income households while threatening health insurance for millions of Americans and putting thousands of clean energy and health care jobs at risk. The bill,which is more than 900 pages longand Republicans have dubbed the "big, beautiful bill," passed a keyprocedural voteover the weekend in the Senate largely along party lines, with all but two Republicans voting to advance it. Follow live coverage here The Senate is debating the measurebefore taking a final vote. If the bill passes the Senate, it will then go back to the House for another vote and ultimately must be signed by President Donald Trump before becoming law. While changes could still be made and its passage isn't certain, here are some of the key winners and losers under the latest version of the bill. The legislation would make permanent trillions of dollars in corporate tax cuts enacted in 2017 during Trump's first term and expand other tax breaks for businesses. That includes permanently lowering the corporate tax rate to 21% from the 35% level before the 2017 tax cuts. The bill would also extend or increase other tax breaks for business investments, like those on new machinery, equipment and research and development, whichbusiness groups have saidwould encourage business investments in the U.S. The bill would also extend through 2033 tax incentives enacted in 2017 for businesses that invest in disadvantaged areas, called Opportunity Zones. The tax cuts would add around $3 trillion over the next decade to the national debt, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. That means the U.S. would have to borrow more money to cover its expenses, requiring it to pay an estimated $600 billion to $700 billion in additionalinterest payments, according to an analysis by the Center for a Responsible Federal Budget. The amount of money Americans pay toward interest on the country's debt is expected to increase sharply in the coming years, totaling $78 trillion over the next 30 years and accounting for 34% of federal revenues,according tothe Congressional Budget Office. Paying for that added interest will fall to future generations, likely in the form of higher taxes and less spending on other programs younger generations could benefit from, like early childhood education, more affordable housing or improved infrastructure. It will also give the U.S. less flexibility to borrow if there is a future crisis, such as a pandemic or war. As U.S. debt has ballooned — with the current ratio of debt to gross domestic product at similar levels to those seen during World War II — it has also increased concern among investors about the country's ability to make its debt and interest payments on time. That means investors are starting to seek a higher interest payments, or yield, in exchange for buying U.S. debt, which could also drive up interest rates for other private loans — with higher mortgage rates or interest on a small business loan. The bill would greatly expand the amount of state and local taxes households are able to deduct from their federal taxes from the current cap of $10,000 to up to $40,000. The biggest beneficiaries from the change would be households making $200,000 to $500,000 a year and those that own property, because they are likelier to pay higher property and income taxes,according to an analysisby the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It would also disproportionately benefit households in higher-tax states, like New York, New Jersey and California. Wealthy households and business owners would also benefit from a permanent reduction in the estate tax. Under the legislation, heirs of estates valued at less than $15 million would not have to pay a tax on their inheritance. That cap is set to drop to $7 million in 2026. Provisions in the latest version of the bill would cause nearly 12 million low-income people to lose their health insurance over the next decade by cutting around $1 trillion from Medicaid, the health insurance program for poor and disabled people,according to the CBO.The Senate bill includes steeper cuts to Medicaid than an earlier version passed by the House. The cuts would take a particular toll on people in rural areas who are more likely to receive their health insurance through Medicaid than those in urban or suburban areas. Researchers atGeorgetown University foundthat 40% of children in small and rural towns receive their health insurance from Medicaid. The bill could also reduce the number of people who receive their insurance through the Affordable Care Act. The version of the Senate bill released over the weekend also includes cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, by requiring adults ages 18 to 64 without disabilities to work at least 80 hours a month unless they are caring for children under 10. The added requirements could lead to $300 billion in cuts to food stamp spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The legislation would carry through on a campaign promise by Trump to exempt income from tips and overtime from federal income taxes. Tipped workers make up about 2.5% of the workforce, and about 12% of hourly workers clock some overtime each year, according to ananalysis by the Yale Budget Lab. Both tax exemptions are structured as deductions that workers would claim when they filed their taxes the following year. The tax exemption would apply only to federal income tax, so workers would still have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on their income, along with any state or local taxes. As many as 40% of tipped workers already don't make enough money to have to pay federal income tax on any of their earnings, so the benefit would be relatively limited, the Yale Budget Lab found. Less funding for Medicaid and fewer people with health insurance would mean a drop-off in doctor's office visits, prescription refills and medical procedures — and, as a result, fewer workers needed to support those types of services. That could lead to the loss of nearly500,000 health care jobsover the next decade, according to an analysis by George Washington University and the Commonwealth Fund. The Senate bill would also prohibit Medicaid funding for entities that provide abortions, including Planned Parenthood, which could cause cuts backs or the closure of those health care centers. The Senate legislation seeks to mitigate some of that pain for rural health care providers, who care for a disproportionately high number of Medicaid patients, with a $25 billion fund for rural hospitals. Both the House and the Senate bill include wins for the fossil fuel industry, stripping away numerous provisions put in place during President Joe Biden's administration to shift energy consumption away from fossil fuels. Both bills would delay a fee on excess methane pollution by oil and gas companies, roll back Biden-era rules to curb vehicle emissions and include provisions intended to speed the development of new fossil fuel projects. The Senate bill also includes a new tax workaround for oil drillers that would enable many of them to avoid having to pay a corporate alternative minimum tax of 15%. Clean energy companies say the bill could cripple their businesses by stripping away tax subsidies and funding made available during the Biden administration. The Senate bill would go further than the earlier version passed in the House by imposing new tax penalties on wind and solar farm projects started after 2027, unless they met certain requirements. That could jeopardize billions of dollars in investments in clean energy projects — along with the thousands of jobs that would come along with those projects, including in Republican-led states like Georgia and South Carolina. Other provisions would reduce benefits for consumers buying electric vehicles, solar panels and appliances to make their homes more energy efficient.

byAdministrator

in

June 30, 2025

Who would win and who would lose in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill'

Who would win and who would lose in Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' Legislation making its waythrough the Senatestands to hav...

Read More

Who's playing where? A cheat sheet on college sports realignment

Who's playing where? A cheat sheet on college sports realignment

The upcoming year for college sports has at least a modest sense of stability: The$2.8 billion House settlementhas been approved, clearing the way for schools to share millions in revenue with their athletes, and major conferences are inyear two of realignmentafter welcoming new programs across the country. There is still of urgency and uncertainty. The settlement has brought a new set of questions about compensating athletes and managing rosters, while realignment has not vanished by any means.The Pac-12 next seasonwill be home to a number of programs fromthe Mountain West,moves that prompted a domino effect. Football membership in the Power Four and the Group of Five over the past three decades: ACC 1996 (9): Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Virginia. 2023 (14): Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest. 2025 (17): Boston College, California, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Louisville, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Pittsburgh, SMU, Stanford, Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest. BIG TEN 1996 (11): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin. 2023 (14): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Wisconsin. 2025 (18): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Southern California, UCLA, Washington, Wisconsin. BIG 12 1996 (12): Baylor, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech. 2023 (14): BYU, Baylor, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas, Texas Tech, West Virginia. 2025 (16): Arizona, Arizona State, BYU, Baylor, Cincinnati, Central Florida, Colorado, Houston, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah, West Virginia. PAC-12 1996 (10): Arizona, Arizona State, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern California, Stanford, UCLA, Washington, Washington State. 2023 (12): Arizona, Arizona State, California, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, Southern California, UCLA, Utah, Washington, Washington State. 2024-25 (2): Oregon State, Washington State. 2026 (9): Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State,Gonzaga (non-football),Oregon State, San Diego State, Texas State, Utah State, Washington State. SEC 1996 (12): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt. 2023 (14): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt. 2025 (16): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt. AMERICAN ATHLETIC 2013 (10, first season): Central Florida, Cincinnati, Connecticut, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Rutgers, SMU, South Florida, Temple. 2023 (14): Charlotte, East Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Memphis, Navy, North Texas, Rice, SMU, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UAB, UTSA. 2025 (14): Army, Charlotte, East Carolina, Florida Atlantic, Memphis, Navy, North Texas, Rice, South Florida, Temple, Tulane, Tulsa, UAB, UTSA. CONFERENCE USA 1996 (6): Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Southern Mississippi, Tulane. 2023 (9): Florida International, Jacksonville State, Liberty, Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee State, New Mexico State, Sam Houston State, UTEP, Western Kentucky. 2024 (10): Florida International, Jacksonville State, Kennesaw State, Liberty, Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee State, New Mexico State, Sam Houston State, UTEP, Western Kentucky. 2025 (12): Delaware, Florida International, Jacksonville State, Kennesaw State, Liberty, Louisiana Tech, Middle Tennessee State, Missouri State, New Mexico State, Sam Houston State, UTEP, Western Kentucky. MID-AMERICAN 1996 (10): Akron, Ball State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Miami (Ohio), Ohio, Toledo, Western Michigan. 2023 (12): Akron, Ball State, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Miami (Ohio), Ohio, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Western Michigan. 2025 (13): Akron, Ball State, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Massachusetts, Miami (Ohio), Northern Illinois, Ohio, Toledo, Western Michigan. 2026 (12): Akron, Ball State, Bowling Green, Buffalo, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Kent State, Massachusetts, Miami (Ohio), Ohio, Toledo, Western Michigan. BIG WEST/WAC/MOUNTAIN WEST 1996 (Big West, 6): Boise State, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico State, North Texas, Utah State. 1996 (WAC, 16): Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, Fresno State, Hawaii, New Mexico, Rice, San Diego State, San Jose State, SMU, TCU, Tulsa, UNLV, Utah, UTEP, Wyoming. 2025 (MWC, 12): Air Force, Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, San Diego State, San Jose State, UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming. 2026 (MWC, 11): Air Force, UC Davis (non football), Grand Canyon (basketball), Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Northern Illinois, San Jose State, UNLV, UTEP, Wyoming. SUN BELT 2001 (7, first season): Arkansas State, Idaho, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Middle Tennessee State, New Mexico State, North Texas. 2025 (14): Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, James Madison, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Marshall, Old Dominion, South Alabama, Southern Mississippi, Texas State, Troy. 2026 (13): Appalachian State, Arkansas State, Coastal Carolina, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, James Madison, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Marshall, Old Dominion, South Alabama, Southern Mississippi, Troy. INDEPENDENTS 1996 (11): Arkansas State, Army, Central Florida, East Carolina, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech, Navy, Northern Illinois, Notre Dame, UAB. 2023 (4): Army, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Notre Dame. 2024 (3): Connecticut, Massachusetts, Notre Dame. 2025 (2): Connecticut, Notre Dame. ___ AP college football:https://apnews.com/hub/college-football

byAdministrator

in

June 30, 2025

Who's playing where? A cheat sheet on college sports realignment

Who's playing where? A cheat sheet on college sports realignment The upcoming year for college sports has at least a modest sense of sta...

Read More

Jalen Ramsey trade grades: Who won deal between Steelers, Dolphins?

Jalen Ramsey trade grades: Who won deal between Steelers, Dolphins?

So much for a slow summer in the NFL. With all teams on break until training camps open in mid-to-late July, this stretch would seem like a natural window for a break in action for a league that seemingly never rests. Yet on Monday, two teams brokered an ultra-rare swap of star players. The headline of the deal: The Miami Dolphins traded cornerback Jalen Ramsey to thePittsburgh Steelersin exchange for safety Minkah Fitzpatrick. Also headed to Pittsburgh aretight end Jonnu Smith and a 2027 seventh-round pick,while Miami also receives a 2027 seventh-round draft pick. Jalen Ramsey trade details: Dolphins deal star CB to Steelers in blockbuster move The shake-up brings an end to the uncertainty that had prevailed for months since the Dolphins first acknowledged they were looking to part with Ramsey, the seven-time Pro Bowl cornerback. And for Pittsburgh, it served as the latest marquee addition – and departure with the exit of Fitzpatrick, a five-time Pro Bowl selection – for a franchise reshaped by the arrivals ofAaron RodgersandDK Metcalf. How did each team fare in the deal? Here are our trade grades: When news of the Ramsey trade first broke, it seemed to be a fitting move for an organization clearly embracing a truncated timeline for competing with Rodgers at the helm. The surprising return, however, muddled the outlook a bit. Cornerback play tends to be volatile year to year, but there's little question that Ramsey raises both the floor and ceiling for Pittsburgh at this vital position group. The Steelers in March signed reliable veteran Darius Slay to fill the void opposite Joey Porter Jr., seemingly settling one of the more pressing deficiencies of the defense. But trusting a 34-year-old to run with the likes of Ja'Marr Chase and Tee Higgins within the division was always going to be a stretch. With Ramsey on board, the Steelers now size up as one of the most imposing matchups for opposing wide receivers. Ramsey can handle the lion's share of reps in base looks alongside Porter, and his experience working inside should pay off massively in allowing him to kick inside to get all three standout corners on the field in nickel packages. That sort of rotation can keep the team fresh down the stretch, with both of its matchups against the rival Baltimore Ravens and a trip to face the Detroit Lions all coming in the final six weeks. Still, given the loss of Fitzpatrick, does this trade truly move the needle much in reshaping the secondary for a defense that ranked 25th in passing yards allowed (228 per game)? The Steelers will try to scrape by on the back end with Juan Thornhill seemingly stepping in alongside Deshon Elliott, but there's little question that the unit will miss Fitzpatrick's playmaking range, though he has recorded just one interception in the last two years combined. Of course, the outlook shifts considerably if Pittsburgh utilizes Ramsey in this role, but it'd be yet another adjustment for all involved. Adding Smith might seem like a natural move, as the tight end will be reunited with offensive coordinator Arthur Smith, who first helped the pass catcher flourish with the Tennessee Titans and later helped him bounce back with the Atlanta Falcons. But even with an abundance of multiple tight end sets, it's still unclear exactly how he'll be incorporated alongside established starter Pat Freiermuth. "It would be complicated having (Smith) and Pat. They're kind of the same type of tight end," Steelers tight end Connor Heyward said earlier in June,according to PennLive, when discussing the rumors of a potential Smith trade. "They both got to have 100 balls a year thrown their way." Maybe the doubling down in Pittsburgh isn't so much a bet on Rodgers as it is on Mike Tomlin finding a way to bring all these disparate pieces together. Regardless, it's a lot of upheaval – even if it largely appears for the better – for the coach to navigate. With the Dolphins in April broadcasting their intention to move on from Ramsey, it seemed as though the organization could only expect a modest return. Instead, it addressed its biggest hole by bringing on one of the top players at his position. Fitzpatrick returns to the franchise nearly six years after it dealt him amid his clash with then-coach Brian Flores regarding his utilization. This time around, there shouldn't be any issues regarding his role. Miami was preparing to enter the season with perhaps the most unstable safety tandem in Ifeatu Melifonwu and Ashtyn Davis. Fitzpatrick isn't at his peak as he prepares to enter a season in which he'll turn 29 in November, but with Ramsey's departure essentially looking inevitable, he's probably the most meaningful addition who could have been acquired at this point in the calendar. Yet it's difficult to feel good about the state of Miami's secondary overall given the outlook after the trade. With Ramsey gone, the Dolphins will depend on the likes of 2023 second-round pick Cam Smith, 2024 undrafted free agent Storm Duck and fifth-round rookie Jason Marshall Jr. on the outside, with nickel Kader Kohou providing the lone bit of stability. Fitzpatrick can only do so much to compensate for a group that doesn't seem up to the task of running with the AFC's best. Sending off Smith also further ups the challenge for an aerial attack that lacks much depth in its pass-catching options beyond Tyreek Hill and Jaylen Waddle. Julian Hill could see a sizable leap in action as a potential replacement at starter, but the move likely necessitates an addition sometime before the season (NFL Network's Tom Pelissero reported the team is scouring the trade market). A fine return for Miami on the whole, but the prevailing issue of the top-heavy roster remains as pervasive as ever. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Jalen Ramsey trade grades: Did Steelers or Dolphins win deal?

byAdministrator

in

June 30, 2025

Jalen Ramsey trade grades: Who won deal between Steelers, Dolphins?

Jalen Ramsey trade grades: Who won deal between Steelers, Dolphins? So much for a slow summer in the NFL. With all teams on break until trai...

Read More