The U.S. government has decided to destroy nearly $9.7 million worth of contraceptives rather than send them to women in need abroad. This decision, confirmed by a spokesperson from the State Department, is expected to cost taxpayers approximately $167,000. The contraceptives, primarily long-acting methods such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and birth control implants, were reportedly intended for distribution in regions including Africa.

According to two senior congressional aides, who visited a warehouse in Belgium housing the contraceptives, the destruction was anticipated to occur by the end of July 2025. The exact timing of the destruction remains unclear. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, criticized the move, stating, “It is unacceptable that the State Department would move forward with the destruction of more than $9 million in taxpayer-funded family planning commodities purchased to support women in crisis settings, including war zones and refugee camps.” Alongside Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Shaheen has introduced legislation aimed at halting the destruction of these vital resources.

The State Department’s rationale for destroying the contraceptives is rooted in the inability to sell them to “eligible buyers,” a situation influenced by U.S. laws that restrict aid to organizations providing abortion services or counselling. The spokesperson indicated that most of these contraceptives have less than 70 percent of their shelf life remaining. However, the congressional aides noted that the earliest expiration date observed on the contraceptives was not until 2027, and approximately two-thirds did not require USAID rebranding.

This decision reflects broader changes under the Trump administration, which has significantly reduced the operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the largest global funding agency for humanitarian aid. Following substantial program cuts, Senator Marco Rubio announced in June 2025 that USAID’s international workforce would be dissolved, with foreign assistance programs shifting to the State Department. According to a recent study published in the journal The Lancet, these funding cuts could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by 2030, with a disproportionate impact on children.

Sarah Shaw, associate director of advocacy at MSI Reproductive Choices, a global family planning organization, emphasized the dire consequences of the destruction. “If you have an unintended pregnancy and you end up having to seek unsafe abortion, it’s quite likely that you will die,” she stated. Shaw criticized the destruction of the contraceptives, describing the situation as “egregious” given the widespread need.

Despite efforts to purchase the contraceptives from the U.S. government, Shaw reported that MSI was unable to afford the full price, especially considering additional transport costs and the approaching expiration dates. The State Department did not address this specific allegation but noted that MSI provides abortions, which may have disqualified them as a buyer under existing regulations.

An internal survey conducted by MSI revealed that programs in ten countries, including the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali, expect to face stock shortages of at least one contraceptive method within the coming month. Shaw expressed concern that the surplus contraceptives would be incinerated rather than distributed where they are badly needed.

The destruction of these contraceptives illustrates the dismantling of a once-robust system that provided essential support to women and families globally. Shaw highlighted the vital role of USAID funding in maintaining the supply chain for family planning aid, noting that without it, many logistical operations are now stalled. In Mali, for instance, USAID funding was used for gas to transport contraceptives, leaving many vehicles unable to operate and causing delays in distribution.

The situation is not isolated to contraceptives. Reports indicate that nearly 500 metric tons of emergency food aid are set to expire and be destroyed instead of feeding approximately 1.5 million children in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Additionally, almost 800,000 Mpox vaccines intended for Africa have also become unusable due to expiration concerns.

The impending cuts to foreign aid are expected to deepen, with Congress recently passing a bill to rescind nearly $8 billion earmarked for international assistance. Shaw poignantly summarized the broader implications: “It’s not just about an empty shelf. It’s about unfulfilled potential. It’s about a girl having to drop out of school. It’s about someone having to seek an unsafe abortion and risking their lives.”

Former President Donald Trump has initiated legal action against media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his companies, News Corp and Dow Jones, following a report by the Wall Street Journal that linked him to a letter for the late financier Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit was officially filed in the federal court in Florida on March 15, 2025, specifically targeting the parent companies of the Journal, two of its reporters, and Murdoch himself.

The controversy erupted when the Wall Street Journal published a story alleging that Trump had written a letter for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003. The report claims that this letter was part of a compilation that included a graphic drawing and expressed wishes for Epstein’s birthday, stating, “may every day be another wonderful secret.” The details of the complaint have not yet been made public, but the implications of the article have caused a significant backlash from Trump.

In response to the publication, Trump labeled the report as “false, malicious, and defamatory.” He expressed his outrage through a series of social media posts, where he threatened to take legal action against Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal. Trump’s remarks included a vow to “sue his ass off, and that of his third-rate newspaper,” highlighting the tension between the former president and the media outlet.

Trump had reportedly attempted to persuade Murdoch, Wall Street Journal editor Emma Tucker, and News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson to halt the publication of the story prior to its release.

The lawsuit coincides with a turbulent period for the Trump administration, particularly regarding Epstein. Earlier in March, a memo from the Department of Justice and the FBI indicated that there was no substantiated “client list” associated with Epstein, nor credible evidence that he had blackmailed prominent individuals. This statement was a notable shift from Trump’s previous campaign promise to release files related to Epstein’s death by suicide in 2019.

Pam Bondi, the U.S. Attorney General, had previously mentioned in February that a “client list” was under review, adding further scrutiny to the ongoing Epstein investigation.

Representatives for Murdoch, News Corp, and Dow Jones have not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit. The White House has also declined to provide any statements on this matter.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of this lawsuit may extend beyond the courtroom, potentially influencing public perception of both Trump and the media entities involved.

Ukraine has expressed approval over the European Union’s recent decision to implement additional sanctions against Russia. On March 15, 2024, the EU’s 18th sanctions package was approved, significantly targeting Russia’s finance and energy sectors. This package introduces a price cap on Russian oil exports and blacklists 105 tankers linked to the Kremlin’s efforts to circumvent existing sanctions.

EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasized the importance of these measures, stating, “We are putting more pressure on Russia’s military industry, Chinese banks that enable sanctions evasion, and blocking tech exports used in drones.” She added that the EU aims to increase the costs for Russia, hoping to make aggression an untenable path for Moscow.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy praised the sanctions as “essential and timely.” He noted that they are a direct response to Russia’s recent escalation of attacks on Ukrainian cities and villages. Despite this, the passage of the sanctions faced hurdles, particularly from Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who threatened to veto the package due to concerns over a separate EU initiative to phase out all imports of Russian gas by 2028.

Fico had previously blocked the sanctions package six times, expressing fears it could leave Slovakia vulnerable to energy shortages and rising costs. However, he ultimately allowed the sanctions to proceed after receiving assurances from the European Commission regarding potential “crisis solutions” for his country.

Tensions have also arisen between Ukraine and Hungary, another neighbor hesitant to sever ties with Russia. Fico and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán have frequently attempted to dilute EU sanctions, arguing they harm their economies more than they do Russia’s. Orbán’s government has escalated its rhetoric against Ukraine, claiming that the country’s defensive efforts and EU aspirations pose risks to the well-being of ethnic Hungarians living in western Ukraine.

This week, Hungary imposed entry bans on three Ukrainian military officials, accusing them of involvement in a violent incident that resulted in the death of an ethnic Hungarian. Ukrainian officials have vehemently denied these claims. Kyiv’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha called the Hungarian government’s actions “unfounded and absurd,” emphasizing their rejection of what he labeled as manipulations.

As Hungary approaches parliamentary elections next year, Orbán’s government may intensify its anti-Ukraine stance. Recent opinion polls indicate that he is trailing behind opposition leader Péter Magyar, leading to claims that Magyar would be a “puppet” of liberal forces in Brussels and Kyiv.

In response to the EU’s new sanctions, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, currently serving as deputy chairman of Russia’s security council, criticized the measures as ineffective. He stated that “strikes against targets in so-called Ukraine, including Kyiv, will only intensify,” while urging Russians to adopt a mindset of hatred toward Europeans.

With the geopolitical landscape continuously evolving, the recent EU sanctions highlight the ongoing complexities faced by Ukraine and its relationships with neighboring countries, particularly as tensions with Russia remain high.

In one of the most significant data breaches in recent history, details of over 100 British nationals, including spies and special forces personnel, were inadvertently released by the UK Ministry of Defence. This breach, which occurred in February 2022, has led to heightened concerns regarding the safety of thousands of Afghans who assisted British forces and have since been relocated to the UK.

The leaked data, which included sensitive personal information, surfaced on Facebook in August 2023. It contained the names and contact details of nearly 19,000 applicants who sought refuge in the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP). Among the individuals listed were members of the MI6 intelligence agency and the SAS (Special Air Service), who had endorsed these Afghan applicants.

Details of the Breach and Its Impact

According to reports from BBC News and other media outlets, the Ministry of Defence acknowledged that the data was released “in error” by a defence official. The breach has raised serious concerns about the potential consequences for those named, particularly given the ongoing threats from the Taliban against individuals who collaborated with Western forces.

As of May 2023, over 16,000 Afghans have been relocated to the UK, as officials feared for their safety amidst potential reprisals. John Healey, the UK Defence Secretary, issued an apology earlier this week, admitting that the breach included personal information of lawmakers and senior military figures who supported Afghan allies. The leak has prompted the former Conservative government to initiate a secret relocation programme, which is estimated to cost around £2 billion (€2.3 billion).

Legal and Political Repercussions

The gravity of the situation was underscored by the imposition of a court-mandated ‘superinjunction’ that prohibited media coverage of the leak and the relocation programme. This injunction was lifted on Tuesday, allowing for public scrutiny of the incident.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence reiterated the organization’s long-standing policy of not commenting on matters related to special forces, making it challenging to gauge the full scope of the impact on those involved. The disclosure of such sensitive information has not only jeopardized the safety of individuals named in the data but also raised questions about the security protocols within the Ministry of Defence.

As the situation develops, the implications of this breach will likely continue to unfold, affecting both British nationals and the Afghan individuals seeking refuge in the UK. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of data security, particularly in matters of national and international significance.