Trump forces the incineration (in Europe) of $10 million worth of contraceptives intended for women in the Global South

BarcelonaDozens of trucks loaded with brand-new contraceptives are waiting in warehouses—one of them in Belgium—to be incinerated. These are implants, IUDs, and birth control pills that the US administration had purchased through the USAID program, the US Agency for International Development, and were destined for countries in the Global South. But now the Donald Trump administration has decided to destroy them, a US government spokesperson confirmed to the newspaper The Guardian at the end of July.

These tons of contraceptive material were intended for low-income women, mainly in African countries. But in January, coinciding with Trump's arrival at the White House, the order was given to freeze funds for USAID programs, the US Agency for International Development, and the stockpile was blocked in a warehouse in Geel, near the Belgian city of Antwerp. It will be incinerated at a recycling plant in France in the coming days.

While several humanitarian organizations, governments, and even UN agencies have offered to purchase the supplies and cover distribution costs, the US government has rejected these offers. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) has confirmed to ARA that it has offered the US administration to "collect the products in Brussels, transport and repackage them to its warehouse in the Netherlands, and distribute them to women in need around the world, all at no cost. "Under normal circumstances, these supplies would have gone to people who want and need contraceptive care, but cannot afford it," the organization laments, urging the authorities, who have not issued any formal public statement so far, to take a position.

In fact, economic logic does not seem to have had anything to do with the decision to burn the contraceptives. The destruction of the supplies cost $167,000 (more than €140,000), which was paid for by American taxpayers. This is why the family planning organizations associated under the IPPF umbrella consider this an act of "reproductive coercion," because the White House is choosing "the waste and extremist ideology" versus "care, human rights, security, and health." "The cuts in USAID funding are by no means neutral: They increase the vulnerability of millions of women and put fundamental rights at risk.", complains Raquel Hurtado, spokesperson for SEDRA, the Spanish Family Planning Federation, to ARA. Hurtado warns of the serious consequences that these types of policies can have, especially for poorer women living in rural areas of countries with already very fragile public health systems: "It is, literally, a question. not only do they reduce the number, but they force women to resort to rudimentary methods, putting their lives at risk. In the name of a supposed morality of protection, what is perpetuated is structural violence." She has approached the North American authorities, but assures that they have refused the offer. in the hands of private entities and that the government has no evidence so far of any transfer having taken place. the management of expired products," and not the stock in question.

Attack on reproductive rights

Since Trump returned to the White House, nearly 83% of USAID contracts have been canceled, resulting in the loss of more than 5,200 projects. According to recent estimates by the prestigious magazine The LancetThese cuts could lead to up to 14 million deaths. additional funds worldwide by 2030. The programs most affected have been those in the field of global health, and especially those in the field of sexual health, such as PEPFAR, the flagship initiative to combat HIV. However, according to UN data, more than 200 million women worldwide still do not have access to contraception.

This part of the Trump administration's agenda is based on the so-called Mexico City Policy, an international anti-abortion agreement in which Trump reinstated US participation in January. The pact prohibits the US government from contributing to or working with organizations that provide funding or supplies that offer access to abortions. And because, against the consensus of the medical community, the current administration considers IUDs an "abortive" method rather than a "contraceptive," this allows it to justify suspending aid to international reproductive health programs.

In this sense, Raquel Hurtado claims that Europe should take a political stand against Trump's anti-abortion onslaught and "compensate for the withdrawal of funds from the United States," since it has "the resources and the responsibility to counter the offensive" against women's sexual and reproductive rights.