USAID kept Kajol alive – but after the cuts she's struggling

BBC - Mar 14th, 2025

The recent decision by the Trump administration to cut US aid spending has severely impacted tuberculosis treatment programs in Bangladesh, leaving many like 17-year-old Kajol without access to life-saving medications. The cuts have halted USAID's funding to local organizations such as Nari Maitree, which provided free TB treatment and were instrumental in identifying and curing thousands of TB cases. As a result, patients are now at risk of incomplete treatment, potentially leading to drug-resistant strains of TB, which are much harder to treat.

The implications of these aid cuts extend beyond TB treatment, affecting the broader healthcare sector and the livelihoods of many in Bangladesh. The reduction in aid has led to the closure of 113 USAID-funded programs, significantly impacting employment and essential services in the country. This situation is exacerbated by the ongoing economic challenges faced by Bangladesh, including high inflation and a jobs crisis. The cuts also threaten the survival of Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazar, who rely heavily on international aid for basic necessities. As global aid diminishes, the stability and health of vulnerable communities in Bangladesh hang in the balance, with fears of escalating crises and security concerns in refugee camps.

Trump Administration Economic Impact Usaid Bangladesh Cox's Bazar Tuberculosis Foreign Aid Cuts Nari Maitree Rohingya Refugees

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a compelling narrative on the impact of USAID funding cuts on healthcare and economic stability in Bangladesh, with a focus on tuberculosis treatment and the Rohingya refugee crisis. It effectively engages readers through personal stories and a clear, accessible writing style, making complex issues understandable to a general audience.

While the article is largely accurate and timely, it would benefit from further verification of some claims and a more balanced exploration of different perspectives. The reliance on unnamed sources and the lack of direct quotes from US government officials slightly diminish its credibility, and the absence of transparency regarding data sources and methodology affects reader trust.

Overall, the article successfully raises awareness about the consequences of foreign aid cuts and encourages discussion about the broader implications of such policy decisions. However, its potential to influence policy change or provoke significant debate is limited by the lack of exploration of opposing viewpoints and alternative solutions.

Accuracy

The story provides a detailed account of the impact of USAID funding cuts on tuberculosis treatment in Bangladesh, highlighting specific cases like that of Kajol. The claim that USAID played a critical role in TB control is supported by data, such as the identification of over a quarter of a million TB cases in 2023. However, the story would benefit from additional verification of the exact numbers and the direct effects of the funding cuts on individual patients and programs.

The article mentions the broader economic impact of aid cuts, including job losses in the NGO sector, which aligns with known consequences of reduced foreign assistance. Yet, it lacks specific data or reports to substantiate these claims comprehensively. The mention of the Rohingya refugee crisis and the role of USAID in providing aid is consistent with known facts, but the extent of the cuts' impact on current conditions needs more detailed evidence.

Overall, the story is largely accurate but would benefit from further corroboration of some of its broader claims, particularly regarding the economic and humanitarian impacts of the aid cuts.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on the negative impacts of the USAID funding cuts, particularly on healthcare and economic stability in Bangladesh. It provides a strong narrative on the challenges faced by individuals and communities affected by these cuts, such as Kajol and the Rohingya refugees.

However, the story could have been more balanced by including perspectives from the US government or other stakeholders involved in the decision to cut aid. Additionally, exploring the potential reasons behind the aid reduction and any potential benefits or strategic shifts could have provided a more comprehensive view.

While the article effectively highlights the challenges and negative consequences, it lacks a balanced exploration of different viewpoints or potential solutions, leading to a somewhat one-sided narrative.

Clarity

The article is well-written, with a clear and engaging narrative that effectively conveys the challenges faced by individuals and communities in Bangladesh due to USAID funding cuts. The language is straightforward and accessible, making complex issues understandable to a general audience.

The structure of the article is logical, with a progression from specific individual stories to broader impacts on the healthcare system and economy. This approach helps to maintain reader interest and provides a comprehensive overview of the situation.

Overall, the article is clear and well-organized, with a tone that is empathetic and informative, effectively conveying the urgency and seriousness of the issues discussed.

Source quality

The article cites information from credible sources, including USAID performance reports and statements from local aid workers and officials. These sources lend credibility to the claims made about the impact of funding cuts on healthcare and economic conditions in Bangladesh.

However, the article relies heavily on unnamed sources, such as a director of a USAID project who is not authorized to speak publicly. While this can be necessary for sensitive topics, it would strengthen the article to have more attributed quotes from identifiable and authoritative sources.

Overall, the source quality is solid, but the reliance on unnamed sources and the lack of direct quotes from US government officials slightly diminishes the overall credibility.

Transparency

The article provides a clear narrative about the impact of USAID funding cuts, outlining specific examples and consequences. However, it lacks transparency in terms of explaining the methodology behind some of the claims, such as the exact process of determining the number of TB cases affected or the economic impact.

There is also a lack of disclosure regarding potential conflicts of interest, such as the perspectives of those who may benefit from continued aid. Additionally, the article does not sufficiently explore the rationale behind the US government's decision to cut aid, which could provide readers with a more transparent understanding of the situation.

While the article effectively communicates the issues at hand, greater transparency in terms of data sources and methodology would enhance its credibility and reader trust.