By MARIA CHENG, Associated Press Medical Writer

LONDON (AP) — Years of American-led investment into AIDS programs has reduced the number of people killed by the disease to the lowest levels seen in more than three decades, and provided life-saving medicines for some of the world’s most vulnerable.

But in the last six months, the sudden withdrawal of U.S. money has caused a “systemic shock,” U.N. officials warned, adding that if the funding isn’t replaced, it could lead to more than 4 million AIDS-related deaths and 6 million more HIV infections by 2029.

“The current wave of funding losses has already destabilized supply chains, led to the closure of health facilities, left thousands of health clinics without staff, set back prevention programs, disrupted HIV testing efforts and forced many community organizations to reduce or halt their HIV activities,” UNAIDS said in a report released Thursday.

Related Articles

EU chief Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survives a confidence vote

Today in History: July 10, the Battle of Britain begins in World War II

US issues sanctions against UN investigator probing abuses in Gaza

South Korean court approves new arrest of former President Yoon Suk Yeol over martial law decree

Ship attacked by Yemen’s Houthi rebels sinks in the Red Sea, 6 of 25 aboard rescued

UNAIDS also said that it feared other major donors might also scale back their support, reversing decades of progress against AIDS worldwide — and that the strong multilateral cooperation is in jeopardy because of wars, geopolitical shifts and climate change.

The $4 billion that the United States pledged for the global HIV response for 2025 disappeared virtually overnight in January when U.S. President Donald Trump ordered that all foreign aid be suspended and later moved to shutter the U.S. AID agency.

Andrew Hill, an HIV expert at the University of Liverpool who is not connected to the United Nations, said that while Trump is entitled to spend U.S. money as he sees fit, “any responsible government would have given advance warning so countries could plan,” instead of stranding patients in Africa when clinics were closed overnight.

The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, was launched in 2003 by U.S. President George W. Bush, the biggest-ever commitment by any country focused on a single disease.

UNAIDS called the program a “lifeline” for countries with high HIV rates, and said that it supported testing for 84.1 million people, treatment for 20.6 million, among other initiatives. According to data from Nigeria, PEPFAR also funded 99.9% of the country’s budget for medicines taken to prevent HIV.

In 2024, there were about 630,000 AIDS-related deaths worldwide, per a UNAIDS estimate — the figure has remained about the same since 2022 after peaking at about 2 million deaths in 2004.

Even before the U.S. funding cuts, progress against curbing HIV was uneven. UNAIDS said that half of all new infections are in sub-Saharan Africa.

Tom Ellman, of the charity Doctors Without Borders, said that while some poorer countries were now moving to fund more of their own HIV programs, it would be impossible to fill the gap left by the U.S.

“There’s nothing we can do that will protect these countries from the sudden, vicious withdrawal of support from the U.S.,” said Ellman, director of Doctors Without Borders’ South Africa Medical Unit.

Experts also fear another loss: data. The U.S. paid for most HIV surveillance in African countries, including hospital, patient and electronic records, all of which has now abruptly ceased, according to Dr. Chris Beyrer, director of the Global Health Institute at Duke University.

“Without reliable data about how HIV is spreading, it will be incredibly hard to stop it,” he said.

The uncertainty comes as a twice-yearly injectable could end HIV, as studies published last year showed that the drug from pharmaceutical maker Gilead was 100% effective in preventing the virus.

At a launch event Thursday, South Africa’s health minister Aaron Motsoaledi said the country would “move mountains and rivers to make sure every adolescent girl who needs it will get it,” saying that the continent’s past dependence upon US aid was “scary.”

Last month, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug, called Yeztugo, a move that should have been a “threshold moment” for stopping the AIDS epidemic, said Peter Maybarduk of the advocacy group Public Citizen.

But activists like Maybarduk said Gilead’s pricing will put it out of reach of many countries that need it. Gilead has agreed to sell generic versions of the drug in 120 poor countries with high HIV rates but has excluded nearly all of Latin America, where rates are far lower but increasing.

“We could be ending AIDS,” Maybarduk said. “Instead, the U.S. is abandoning the fight.”

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP receives financial support for global health and development coverage in Africa from the Gates Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By LORNE COOK, Associated Press

BRUSSELS (AP) — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen comfortably survived a vote of no confidence on Thursday, as an overwhelming number of European Union lawmakers rejected a censure motion against her.

The motion contained a mix of allegations against von der Leyen, including text messaging privately with the chief executive of vaccine maker Pfizer during the COVID-19 pandemic, misuse of EU funds and interference in elections in Germany and Romania.

The motion was defeated in a 360-175 vote against it, with 18 lawmakers choosing to abstain during a plenary session at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France.

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen delivers her speech during a statement on the preparation for the EU–China Summit, Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France. (AP Photo/Pascal Bastien)

Von der Leyen wasn’t present for the vote, but taking to social media, she posted: “As external forces seek to destabilize and divide us, it is our duty to respond in line with our values. Thank you, and long live Europe.”

The vote has been a lightning rod for criticism of Von der Leyen — who led the EU drive to find vaccines for around 450 million citizens during the pandemic — and her European People’s Party, or EPP, which is the largest political family in the assembly.

They’re accused of cozying up to the hard right to push through their agenda and sidestepping mainstream pro-European parties when it’s difficult or inconvenient to form a majority. The European Parliament shifted perceptibly to the political right after Europe-wide elections a year ago.

“We won’t vote with the far-right and we do not support this motion. This vote was little more than a far-right PR stunt from Putin-loving populists,” Greens group President Terry Reintke said in a statement after the poll, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

However, she added: “We are ready to build pro-European majorities, but we will not be played by the EPP in their desperate deregulation agenda and their desire to consistently form anti-European majorities with the far-right.”

Iratxe García Pérez, the leader of the No. 2 bloc in parliament, the Socialists and Democrats, said that “our vote doesn’t mean that we are not critical of the European Commission. The recent shifts by von der Leyen towards far-right pledges are a major cause for alarm.”

After voting against, Valerie Hayer, the leader of the pro-business Renew group, insisted in a social media post that von der Leyen must “take control of her political family to put an end to alliances with the far right.”

Related Articles

UN says if US funding for HIV programs is not replaced, millions more will die by 2029

Today in History: July 10, the Battle of Britain begins in World War II

US issues sanctions against UN investigator probing abuses in Gaza

South Korean court approves new arrest of former President Yoon Suk Yeol over martial law decree

Ship attacked by Yemen’s Houthi rebels sinks in the Red Sea, 6 of 25 aboard rescued

The EPP has notably worked with the hard right to fix the agenda for hearing von der Leyen’s new commissioners when they were questioned for their suitability for their posts last year, and to reject an ethics body meant to combat corruption.

The censure motion, the first at the European Parliament in over a decade, was brought against the European Commission president by a group of hard-right lawmakers.

On the eve of the vote, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said on Facebook that it would “be the moment of truth: on one side the imperial elite in Brussels, on the other patriots and common sense. There is no getting out of it, it is essential to make a choice.”

He posted: “Madam President, the essence of leadership is responsibility. Time to go!” Von der Leyen’s commission has frequently clashed with Orbán over his staunchly nationalist government’s moves to roll back democracy. The European Commission has frozen Hungary’s access to billions of euros in EU funds.

Justin Spike contributed to this report from Budapest, Hungary.

Whether U.S. bombers recently “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capability (President Donald Trump’s preferred wording) or “severely damaged” it (per the CIA) matters so much to Trump that he’s threatened to sue news outlets reporting the CIA’s terminology.

The common presidential desire to shape the narrative has been especially noticeable lately, especially with matters regarding tariff-induced inflation.

It may even be generating a particular form of presidentially corrected economic speech reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s tenure.

In 1978, Carter, worried about America’s sagging economy, ordered cabinet members to refrain from alarming the country with the word “recession.” Minding his boss’ instruction but facing a direct question, economic advisor Fred Kahn famously responded, “We’re in danger of having the worst banana in 45 years.”

With U.S. first quarter GDP growth now charting -0.50% and more than one respected forecaster looking at paltry growth later this year, will we see officials dancing around the same word in the near future? Trump’s preference for political happy talk has already reframed conversations about his economic agenda.

Trump recently chastised Walmart executives when they announced that China tariffs would force the retailer to raise prices. He angrily called for Walmart to “eat” the tariffs and reminded them in less-than-gentle terms that he would be watching.

In another example, toymaker Mattel indicated that it too would be raising prices because of tariffs. Outraged, Trump threatened to impose a 100% tariff on its products, promising the firm “won’t sell one toy in the United States.”

Since then, business leaders have been avoiding speaking about the price increases and other disruptions that Americans are quite obviously experiencing due to White House tariffs. As Neil Saunders, director of Global Data Retail, warned: ”The White House has decided it should aim its tanks at companies that do speak out.”

So, when offering investor guidance, some retailers speak of “adjusting” prices, others address the elephant in the room “gently and sparingly,” and still others refer to their pricing policies with words like “surgical.”

Above all, linking price changes to tariffs is a no-no. Denise Dahlhoff, director of marketing and communications research at the Conference Board, advises executives to use more neutral terms like “sourcing cost” or “input cost” or “supply chain cost,” which “are not as incendiary as ‘tariff.”

After all, Trump is serious about language. In February, the White House banned an Associated Press reporter from press conferences and Air Force One over the news agency’s refusal to re-term the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” in its influential style manual (at least until cries over First Amendment rights turned the tide).

Trump and Carter are hardly the first pair of presidents to pour rhetorical oil on troubled waters, but the historical results, as with today, are mixed at best.

In Harry Truman’s time, the Korean War became known as a “police action.” Somehow the phrase softened the perceived scale of the situation and suggested the conflict would end quickly. But mid-century Americans knew a war when they saw it. Losing political patience, voters turned away from Truman’s party and chose Dwight Eisenhower to bring the action to an end.

In later wars, mostly undeclared, political speech began to deny the use of the word “retreat” in favor of terms like “an orderly withdrawal of troops.” Observers may view Vietnam or Afghanistan as the former, but leaders prefer less dramatic and more positive language.

Perhaps the most audacious and enduring effort by a Western leader to alter political speech came in 1604 when newly installed King James I of England ordered 47 leading Biblical scholars to develop a new Bible translation. The resulting King James Authorized Version is thought to be one of the most beautifully written volumes of the age. By the king’s order, it also removed certain references to kings as tyrants which had been present in an earlier English Bible.

Kings, democratically elected presidents, and holders of lesser offices will always frame things as they see fit, especially if they feel that their power or wisdom is being questioned. We the people may sometimes respond pragmatically by altering our own language. These things can be weathered so long as Americans retain our reverence for freedom of speech. Otherwise, only the bravest will have the gumption to call a spade a spade.

Bruce Yandle is a distinguished adjunct fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and former executive director of the Federal Trade Commission. He wrote this column for Tribune Content Agency.

Related Articles

F. Willis Johnson: Prophets, not spectators — the class of 2025 and the work of repair

Allison Schrager: America’s broken politics is breaking economics, too

Ross Douthat: Conservatives are prisoners of their own tax cuts

Barnett, Kristof: It isn’t freedom if it’s not for everyone

Thomas Friedman: How Trump’s ‘big beautiful bill’ will make China great again

As Christianity declines in the West, the faith is flourishing in sub-Saharan Africa, which is seeing the fastest growth in Christianity the world over. By 2060, more than 4 in 10 Christians worldwide are expected to live in sub-Saharan Africa, compared with just 1 in 10 in 1970, according to Pew Research.

But this growth is coming at a cost. Unlike their counterparts in the U.S., African Christians increasingly risk violent death for their beliefs.

Nigeria, home to one of Africa’s largest and fastest-growing Christian populations, has also become one of the world’s deadliest places to practice the faith. On June 13, about 200 Christians were massacred by a group of jihadists in Yelwata, a town located in Benue State, which is almost entirely Christian. Most of the victims were internally displaced people sheltering at a nearby Catholic mission, many of them women and children.

This tragically is not unusual in Nigeria. During Holy Week, more than 150 Christians were killed in targeted attacks across central Nigeria. Some watchdog groups estimate that more than 50,000 Nigerian Christians have been killed by Islamist extremists since 2009. The State Department reports that fatal attacks in Nigeria are ongoing.

Moreover, in this violent region, the atrocities aren’t limited to Christians. Innocents of all faiths fall victim to militants, including members of the Muslim faith, which is also growing rapidly in sub-Saharan Africa. Some reports estimate that tens of thousands of moderate Muslims also have been killed by extremists in Nigeria, reflecting the broader toll of militant violence.

Bishop Wilfred Chikpa Anagbe, a Catholic leader in Benue State where the atrocities occurred, testified in March before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, pleading with officials to take notice of what’s happening. He described his home as “one of the most dangerous and insecure places for Christians,” and his testimony came months before the June 13 attack. He noted that villagers sometimes are warned in advance of attacks and that even if they contact police for protection, no help comes and the slaughters happen anyway.

“Constitutionally, we are a secular country, but our unity has been fragile,” he said. “We live in fear because at any point, it can be our turn to be killed. But to remain silent is to die twice, so I have chosen to speak.”

Pope Leo offered a timely prayer for Nigeria during a June 15 address in St. Peter’s Square. “I pray that security, justice and peace prevail in Nigeria, a beloved country that has suffered various forms of violence,” he said.

We do not know the sort of fear of which Bishop Anagbe spoke because we live in a country that believes in the right to religious freedom.

It’s why we find alleged hate crimes such as the May slaying of a young Jewish couple, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, in Washington, D.C., so devastating. We feel as if we are shielded from the sectarian violence that afflicts other parts of the globe by virtue simply of being American and when hate-based violence occurs here, that confidence is undermined.

The First Amendment protects all our religious freedoms, hardly limited to the three great Abrahamic religions, but it doesn’t guarantee them. We write this not only to spotlight the horrors others face for expressing their faith, but to remind ourselves that America’s religious liberty is rare, fragile and worth protecting.

— The Chicago Tribune

Related Articles

A surprise IRS move on political endorsements leaves faith leaders and legal experts divided

Pope prays for world to recognize urgency of climate crisis as he celebrates Mass’ using new rite

Pastors who endorse political candidates shouldn’t lose tax-exempt status, IRS says in filing

Pioneer Press covered a local girl’s quinceañera in 1985. Now it’s her granddaughter’s turn.

Tibetans in exile wonder: Will the next Dalai Lama be as charismatic as this one?