PEPFAR is a Foreign Aid program launched by President George Bush in 2003 to address the AIDS epidemics in several developing countries. It is almost universally acclaimed as one of the most successful foreign aid programs in history, saving around 25 million lives. Apart from lives saved, the program has been useful for controlling the epidemics. 

The current US administration has stopped most of its foreign aid programs until an audit is carried on, and while I sincerely wish that after the review PEPFAR will be kept in the US Aid portfolio, there a significant chance that the US now considers itself overburdened by its long commitment to the provision of Global Public Goods. This is an extraordinary opportunity for the European Union to step in and fund the program either completely or in its near vicinity (Africa, Ukraine and Central America are natural regions for the EU intervention). Being an American ally, the European commission can ask the US to provide all information to complete a smooth transition (other partners, as Japan or Corea can perhaps commit to replace the US in their natural areas of influence).  Given the urgency of the task, in my view the EU shall begin its preparation even before the US completes its review.

By its multilateral nature, the European Union cannot act in the world with the freedom of manoeuvre that a single national government can. On the other hand, foreign aid is less controversial than other influence tools, and the European Union shall compensate for its weaknesses by an intelligent use of its limited resources. By the friendly substitution of a close ally in a well-tested and effective Aid program, Europe can both enhance its internal cohesion and signal its external stance in the difficult period ahead. 

I propose to all interested groups and persons to contact the President of the European Commission to ask her for the necessary arrangements to prepare for the eventuality of replacing the United States in the PEPFAR program. For your convenience, I provide the letter I have written to the President, while I suppose others will prefer to produce their own text.

 

-----------------

Dear President von der Leyen,

I am writing to bring to your attention the pressing matter of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a Foreign Aid initiative launched by President George W. Bush in 2003 to combat the AIDS epidemic in several developing countries. PEPFAR has been nearly universally acclaimed as one of the most successful Foreign Aid programs in history, having saved approximately 25 million lives and proving instrumental in controlling the epidemic.

Unfortunately, the current US administration has suspended most of its Foreign Aid programs pending a comprehensive audit. While I fervently hope that PEPFAR will remain a cornerstone of the US Aid portfolio post-review, there is a significant possibility that the US may now deem its commitment to PEPFAR as overly burdensome.

This scenario presents an extraordinary opportunity for the European Union to step in and assume funding of the PEPFAR program, either in its entirety or in specific regions (Africa, Ukraine and Central America look like natural priorities for Europe). As a close ally, the European Commission can request the United States government to provide all necessary information and support to facilitate a smooth transition. 

Given the urgency of the situation, I believe it is prudent for the European Union to begin preparations even before the United States completes its review.  By amicably substituting a close ally in a well-tested and effective aid program, Europe can not only enhance its internal cohesion but also signal its external stance in the challenging period ahead.

Thank you for considering this vital matter.

Comments10


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I really like the ambition here! 


Some numbers to add context:
1. The previous U.S. administration requested $6.1 billion of funding for PEPFAR for FY 2025[1]. That's the equivalent of €5.856 billion[2]
2. 449.2 million people live in the European Union[3]. That is significantly more than the United States population. 
3. The cost of funding PEPFAR would be €13.04 per year per EU resident. That's only slightly more than €1 per month. 

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^

It is worth noting that the European Union itself does not have that many financial resources: the EU's 2025 budget is ~€200 billion [1]. That is an order of magnitude less than the U.S. federal government budget.  This means that the EU member states would need to provide funding for this program from their national budgets.

  1. ^

Just a detail: The name of the President of the European Commission is "von der Leyen" with "e" instead of "a".

I am also curious if you have any donation recommendations if the decision on PEPFAR will be final. Obvious candidates would be Give Well or the Global Development Fund of Effektiv Spenden if you live in Germany. But maybe you have other suggestions. 

My God! Misspelling a surname is probably the worst you can do when are asking for something. Thanks for correction.

Positive suggestion, but the title for the post is confusing

In which sense? Any suggestion for a more clear one? In fact I changed once already, because it did not fit well in the Forum (was too long).

The use of the word “shall” makes it sound like you are confidently predicting the EU will do it, as opposed to to proposing asking the EU to do it.

Thank you for the redaction suggestions. I have decided to use "must" and I have corrected the misspelling in the president surname.

Regarding individual donations, I do not have suggestions, because this is too big for individuals. In my view this is a political opportunity for Europe: we know that the program works well, so it is low risk. 

I would say that being replaced by the europeans is not exactly the optics that the current US government want in this issue, so probably the offer would increase the probability of continuation.

I think it was "will replace" when I wrote the comment but now it's "must replace"? If that's the case, it's better now.

See here (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FTTPCtkizkAQ9fkvM/unicode-wvyp) for the Rapid Response Fund: https://www.founderspledge.com/funds/rapid-response-fund. It's an opportunity to donate to help mitigate the worst immediate consequences of the aid freeze.

Curated and popular this week
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Dr Kassim
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
Hey everyone, I’ve been going through the EA Introductory Program, and I have to admit some of these ideas make sense, but others leave me with more questions than answers. I’m trying to wrap my head around certain core EA principles, and the more I think about them, the more I wonder: Am I misunderstanding, or are there blind spots in EA’s approach? I’d really love to hear what others think. Maybe you can help me clarify some of my doubts. Or maybe you share the same reservations? Let’s talk. Cause Prioritization. Does It Ignore Political and Social Reality? EA focuses on doing the most good per dollar, which makes sense in theory. But does it hold up when you apply it to real world contexts especially in countries like Uganda? Take malaria prevention. It’s a top EA cause because it’s highly cost effective $5,000 can save a life through bed nets (GiveWell, 2023). But what happens when government corruption or instability disrupts these programs? The Global Fund scandal in Uganda saw $1.6 million in malaria aid mismanaged (Global Fund Audit Report, 2016). If money isn’t reaching the people it’s meant to help, is it really the best use of resources? And what about leadership changes? Policies shift unpredictably here. A national animal welfare initiative I supported lost momentum when political priorities changed. How does EA factor in these uncertainties when prioritizing causes? It feels like EA assumes a stable world where money always achieves the intended impact. But what if that’s not the world we live in? Long termism. A Luxury When the Present Is in Crisis? I get why long termists argue that future people matter. But should we really prioritize them over people suffering today? Long termism tells us that existential risks like AI could wipe out trillions of future lives. But in Uganda, we’re losing lives now—1,500+ die from rabies annually (WHO, 2021), and 41% of children suffer from stunting due to malnutrition (UNICEF, 2022). These are preventable d
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
20
Eva
· · 1m read