The United States is restructuring how it delivers life-saving medical supplies for HIV and malaria to low-income countries, a shift that officials and health experts warn could disrupt treatment access across parts of Africa and Asia.

The changes centre on winding down the Global Health Supply Chain Program – Procurement and Supply Management, a U.S.-funded initiative run by Chemonics, which has coordinated the delivery of critical medicines and prevention tools since 2016. According to internal communications and multiple sources familiar with the matter, U.S. officials have been instructed to begin halting implementation of the programme by May 30.

From its inception through 2024, the programme distributed more than $5 billion worth of HIV and malaria-related commodities to 90 countries, with a primary focus on sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. The supplies included antiretroviral drugs, malaria treatments and insecticide-treated bed nets, forming a key component of global disease control efforts.The restructuring follows broader changes to U.S.

foreign aid policy under the administration of Donald Trump, which has prioritised reducing reliance on contractors, cutting budgets and shifting toward direct agreements with recipient governments. The overhaul also comes after the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development, which had previously overseen much of Washington’s development assistance.

Five sources familiar with the transition said the pace of the changes risks creating supply gaps for essential medicines, particularly in countries with fragile health systems. An internal email reviewed by Reuters warned that accelerating the transition without a clear implementation plan could jeopardise continuity of services.

The communication, sent by the U.S. State Department to staff in 17 African countries and Haiti, directed country teams to prepare for the end of programme operations while outlining potential risks. It did not provide a detailed roadmap for replacement mechanisms, instead asking local offices to identify vulnerabilities and report back to Washington.

A State Department spokesperson said the agency had not issued technical instructions for Chemonics to cease operations by May 30, though the contract is set to expire on September 30 in line with other USAID awards. The official end date is listed as November.

The uncertainty has revived concerns stemming from earlier disruptions. In January last year, a freeze on international aid left millions of dollars’ worth of medical supplies stranded in ports and warehouses worldwide, including HIV drugs and malaria prevention tools. Distribution resumed only after waivers were granted for life-saving interventions.

Six sources said the United States has been in discussions with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria about potentially using its procurement and distribution systems to replace the existing programme. The Geneva-based institution already manages approximately $2 billion in annual purchases for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria programmes through partnerships with national governments and implementing agencies.

However, two sources said earlier plans had envisaged a transition timeline extending to November 2027, allowing sufficient time for procurement cycles and logistical adjustments. Compressing this timeline into a matter of months could create operational bottlenecks, they said, noting that delivering medical supplies to remote areas can take up to a year from order to distribution.

The Global Fund declined to comment on the discussions. The State Department did not directly confirm the talks but said it would rely on pooled procurement mechanisms to secure supplies at competitive prices from private manufacturers.The policy shift is part of a broader “America First” approach to global health funding, which aims to reduce what officials describe as inefficiencies in the existing system.

A strategy document released in September argued that contractor-led programmes had contributed to waste and inflated costs, and emphasised direct funding for frontline services and national governments.

Under the new approach, Washington has signed 28 bilateral health agreements with partner countries and is increasingly channeling funds directly to national authorities. It also plans to use private logistics firms to handle distribution rather than relying on large development contractors.

Recent agreements with countries such as Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda include commitments to increase domestic health spending alongside U.S. funding. However, implementation has encountered obstacles. In Kenya, a proposed deal faces legal challenges from activists concerned about data privacy, while negotiations with Zambia have been delayed as officials seek to safeguard national interests.

Health experts and aid practitioners say the transition risks compounding existing vulnerabilities in global disease control programmes. Previous disruptions linked to funding changes have already contributed to shortages of malaria treatments for children and gaps in HIV prevention services in several countries.

The State Department defended the overhaul, describing the current system as outdated and inefficient. A spokesperson said the new model would prioritise value for American taxpayers while maintaining support for critical health interventions.

Despite those assurances, several sources involved in programme delivery said the lack of a detailed transition plan remains a central concern. They warned that without clear coordination between donors, governments and implementing partners, the shift could interrupt supply chains that millions depend on for survival.

Mossad’s internal communications described Gandhi as a “bitter dynast” allegedly involved in “coordinated efforts” to damage Adani and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

In an explosive revelation with far-reaching geopolitical implications, sources have told Sputnik India that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally ordered the country’s spy agency, Mossad, to counter an alleged international campaign aimed at tarnishing the reputation of Indian billionaire Gautam Adani.

This unprecedented operation, codenamed Operation Zeppelin, reportedly included hacking into the personal servers of Indian political strategist and Indian Overseas Congress (IOC) head Sam Pitroda.

According to highly placed sources, Mossad’s intervention was triggered days after the now-infamous Hindenburg Research report released on January 24, 2023, which accused Adani of orchestrating “the largest con in corporate history.” The bombshell wiped off approximately $150 billion from Adani Group’s valuation and led to one of India’s most severe stock market crashes.

Haifa Deal and Israel’s Strategic Concerns

The timing of the Hindenburg report raised alarms in Tel Aviv, occurring just days before Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (APSEZ) closed a landmark $1.2 billion deal to acquire Haifa Port—Israel’s largest and most strategic shipping hub. Sources told Sputnik India that Netanyahu, present during the finalization of the Haifa deal, raised the issue directly with Adani in a high-level closed-door meeting.

“This report… it is a serious threat to your business, isn’t it?” Netanyahu reportedly asked Adani, who was alone representing his group at the time. Present alongside Netanyahu were key aides, including Eshel Armoni, former Mossad operative and then-chairman of Haifa Port.

Adani’s calm rebuttal—“Not at all. It’s all lies.”—did little to ease Israeli concerns.

Netanyahu, citing the strategic nature of the India-Israel relationship, is believed to have told Adani, “Even if you see no threat, we have to be concerned. If it weakens you, it could sabotage not just this port deal but everything we have worked to build with India.”

According to sources, he described the Hindenburg charges as an “indirect attack” on Israel and assured Adani: “Israel believes in protecting its friends.”

Mossad Launches Operation Zeppelin

Within days, Mossad launched Operation Zeppelin, activating its elite Tzomet (Human Intelligence) and Keshet (Cyber Operations) units. The operation aimed to uncover what Israeli intelligence perceived as a coordinated global effort to derail the Haifa deal and undermine India’s standing.

Targets reportedly included Hindenburg Research’s New York headquarters and its founder Nathan Anderson, who were put under direct surveillance. The operation expanded to monitor hedge funds, activist lawyers, journalists, and political figures allegedly linked to the U.S. Deep State and billionaire George Soros.

One of the most startling aspects of the operation was the cyber intrusion into the Illinois-based residence of Sam Pitroda. Sources claimed that Mossad successfully accessed encrypted chatrooms and backchannel communications allegedly linking senior Indian opposition figures, including Congress MP Rahul Gandhi, to Anderson’s team.

Citing these findings, sources said Mossad’s internal communications described Gandhi as a “bitter dynast” allegedly involved in “coordinated efforts” to damage Adani and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Global Surveillance and Western Media

Mossad’s operations reportedly spanned multiple geographies—ranging from the U.S. and Canada to Europe and Australia. One decrypted email from Anderson, dated September 2023, allegedly confirmed a broader plan: “Nate’s report was just the beginning. More’s coming.”

By January 2024, Adani was privately briefed on the Zeppelin findings by Israeli intelligence operatives in Switzerland. The resulting dossier—spanning 353 pages—accused Western media outlets, USAID, and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) of amplifying anti-Adani narratives.

According to sources, USAID played a “central role” in disseminating disinformation through media channels.

In November 2024, intermediaries linked to Mossad reportedly leaked segments of the dossier to Reuters, Bloomberg, and The Guardian. Only French investigative outlet Mediapart published a report. “Most buried the story,” the sources noted.

Legal Blowback and Political Fallout

The dossier’s release coincided with legal actions against Adani by U.S. agencies, reportedly influenced by Biden administration officials. However, these cases collapsed under scrutiny, and sources say they led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Breon Peace.

In December 2024, Adani’s legal team—led by powerhouse firm Quinn Emanuel—sent a seven-page legal threat to Hindenburg Research. A month later, Nathan Anderson allegedly agreed to dissolve Hindenburg in exchange for immunity, which was revoked after Donald Trump assumed office in January 2025.

Congress Responds

India’s main opposition party, Congress, has categorically denied any links to Hindenburg or foreign entities. In a statement, it called the allegations a diversionary tactic to shift attention away from the serious issues raised by the Hindenburg report.

“This is nothing but a smokescreen to protect the ruling party’s corporate allies,” a Congress spokesperson told local media.

If confirmed, the revelations about Operation Zeppelin mark an extraordinary case of transnational intelligence operations being deployed in the defense of private economic interests. It underscores the evolving nexus between geopolitics, corporate interests, and cyber-espionage.

As of now, neither the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office nor Mossad has commented on the allegations. Gautam Adani’s office has also declined to respond to queries from Sputnik India.

This story is developing.

S M Faiyaz Hossain

Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called ‘Monroe Doctrine 2.0.

In 1823, President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a crucial U.S. policy to stop European nations from taking over or interfering with countries in the Americas. Monroe stated that new European colonies were not allowed in the Western Hemisphere and that any attempt by European powers to control or harm independent nations in this area would be a threat to the U.S. The United States promised not to get involved in European issues or their existing colonies but wanted to protect newly independent Latin American countries. At that time, Spain wanted to reclaim its old colonies, and Russia aimed to expand along North America’s Pacific coast. The U.S. couldn’t enforce the policy alone due to a weak military, but Britain supported the doctrine because it aligned with their trade interests in Latin America. Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved, with President Theodore Roosevelt adding the Roosevelt Corollary, which allowed U.S. intervention in Latin America to keep Europeans out. By the mid-20th century, under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the focus shifted to cooperation and non-interference with the Good Neighbour Policy. The Monroe Doctrine remains a vital part of U.S. foreign policy and symbolizes America’s role in the Western Hemisphere.

President Donald Trump didn’t talk about the Monroe Doctrine during his 2016 campaign, but it became key to his “America First” foreign policy as president. In 2018, he brought up the doctrine in a United Nations speech, saying it was important to keep outside interference out of the Western Hemisphere. By his 2024 campaign, the Monroe Doctrine had become very important, especially to push back against China’s influence in Latin America. Many historians and experts believed that if Trump were elected again, he would focus more on the Monroe Doctrine. This would mean trying to have more control in the Western Hemisphere while reducing involvement in Europe and Asia. Hal Brands, a historian, thought Trump would give the doctrine more energy during a second term, matching his “America First” approach. James Jay Carafano from the Heritage Foundation also suggested reinvigorating the doctrine to counter foreign influence, particularly from China. Experts at Foreign Affairs and Carnegie Endowment pointed out that Trump’s policies reflected a modern take on the doctrine, trying to expand U.S. influence beyond the Western Hemisphere.

Trump’s trade policies aimed to reduce the influence of other countries and strengthen U.S. control in nearby regions. One key move was imposing 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico. He argued these tariffs would help decrease migration and stop fentanyl trafficking, but they also served to pressure Mexico to follow U.S. interests, reflecting an idea similar to the Monroe Doctrine, which emphasizes U.S. influence in the Americas. In his trade conflict with China, Trump focused on reducing China’s growing economic power in Latin America. His goal was to curb China’s influence and shift supply chains back to the Americas. To achieve this, he implemented reciprocal tariffs, including a basic 10% tariff on most Latin American countries, with higher rates for Guyana and Nicaragua. This approach was about claiming economic control in the region and showed Trump’s willingness to prioritize U.S. interests over existing free trade agreements like CAFTA-DR. Trump also used tariffs to push countries toward aligning with U.S. priorities in areas like security cooperation and trade agreements. For instance, Paraguay’s purchase of U.S. radars and Ecuador’s consideration of hosting a U.S. military base highlight how his economic measures were tied to broader geopolitical goals.

The Monroe Doctrine originally aimed to keep European powers out of the Americas, but Trump wanted it to apply worldwide. He believed some large organizations and allies were trying to weaken the U.S. or take advantage of its resources without giving enough return. Trump was sceptical of NATO and the EU because he thought Europe relied too much on American security and didn’t spend enough on their own defence. His administration wanted European countries to handle their security more, so the U.S. could reduce its role and investment in NATO. This was a significant change from the usual U.S.-Europe partnership. Trump’s interest in Greenland shows his use of the Monroe Doctrine approach. He wanted to buy Greenland to increase U.S. influence in the Arctic, where there are lots of valuable resources. This move was also meant to challenge China and Russia’s presence in the region. Although Denmark rejected the idea, Trump’s focus on Greenland aligns with the Monroe Doctrine by trying to control key areas and preventing other countries from gaining power there. In addition, his tariff actions against Europe and his efforts to strengthen the U.S. dollar show his desire to change the global economy to favour the United States.

Trump’s actions against the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) demonstrate how he applies his “America First” ideas. He targeted USAID because some argued it supported projects that hurt U.S. interests or advanced foreign agendas conflicting with his policy. By freezing foreign aid and stopping USAID activities in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Ukraine, Trump aimed to align U.S. foreign assistance with domestic priorities. This decision also fits with Trump’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, which he used to address perceived threats from non-state actors or certain ideologies. Critics claimed USAID funding supported initiatives associated with regime changes or left-wing agendas abroad, which Trump viewed as harmful to U.S. sovereignty and regional stability.

Donald Trump’s “America First” policy acts like a globalized version of the old Monroe Doctrine, called “Monroe Doctrine 2.0.” He used this idea to show U.S. power around the world. Trump challenged Global institutions like NATO, the EU. He decided to bypass these institutions and put tariffs on both allies and competitors of the U.S. His interest in buying Greenland showed a Monroe-like plan to control important areas to compete with China and Russia. Trump’s aim to shift supply chains more toward the Americas followed the doctrine’s focus on this region. Years, decades later another U.S President may emulate President Donald Trump’s Policies and commentators may name it America First 2.0, or Monroe Doctrine 3.0. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

USAID has been accused of funding organizations and individuals that are vocal critics of Modi’s administration, furthering an agenda that weakens India’s independent policy-making.

In a bombshell revelation, reports have surfaced suggesting that USAID, the United States Agency for International Development, has been more than just a development agency in India—it has allegedly been working to undermine Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government. Operating under the shadowy influence of the Deep State, USAID is accused of pushing a left-leaning agenda, funding Modi’s critics, and subtly shaping public sentiment to serve American geopolitical interests.

USAID’s Heavy-Handed Political Interference

BJP politician Savio Rodrigues has blown the whistle on what he describes as blatant political interference. Speaking to Sputnik India, Rodrigues revealed how USAID’s initiatives, supposedly aimed at increasing voter participation, were actually an attempt to influence Indian elections.

“DOGE’s findings expose USAID’s attempt to influence Indian voters by masquerading as an initiative to boost voter turnout,” Rodrigues stated. The implication is alarming—foreign agencies meddling in India’s democratic process under the convenient guise of development assistance.

Deep State’s Left-Wing Agenda in India

The term “Deep State” refers to an intricate network of bureaucrats, intelligence officers, and corporate lobbyists who manipulate global events to align with their ideological and economic objectives. India, under Modi’s leadership, has proven to be a thorn in their plans.

With a government that champions nationalism and self-reliance, India is seen as a disruption to the traditional Western grip on global politics. USAID, allegedly influenced by these hidden power structures, has been accused of funding organizations and individuals that are vocal critics of Modi’s administration, furthering an agenda that weakens India’s independent policy-making.

For decades, the U.S. has used foreign aid agencies to exert influence over developing nations, and India is no exception. What appears to be assistance often comes with strings attached—ensuring that opposition voices are emboldened and narratives against nationalist leaders like Modi gain traction in both domestic and international forums.

India: The Deep State’s Political and Economic Laboratory

With its vast population and growing economic influence, India has been turned into a testing ground for external manipulation. Intelligence experts argue that USAID and affiliated entities have used research, social media influence, and targeted funding to sway public opinion in ways that benefit U.S. corporate and political interests.

Many believe that social media discourse, think-tank reports, and activism have been subtly guided by USAID-linked organizations. While these efforts are often disguised as democracy-building or advocacy for human rights, they serve a larger goal—keeping India aligned with Western influence and corporate profiteering.

U.S. Corporations: The Biggest Beneficiaries

John Perkins, bestselling author of Confessions of an Economic Hitman, has extensively exposed how institutions like USAID ultimately work in favor of American businesses. Speaking to Sputnik India, Perkins explained how foreign aid, rather than being an altruistic endeavor, primarily serves U.S. corporate giants.

“Foreign aid funds and loans intended for developing nations, channeled through U.S. agencies, are ultimately designed to benefit American corporations,” Perkins noted.

By ensuring that aid money is spent on projects where American contractors and multinational firms dominate, these agencies create long-term economic dependence. India, with its booming economy, has been a prime target for such predatory tactics, further strengthening foreign control over its financial landscape.

Economic Hitmen Are in India

John Perkins, who once worked as an “economic hitman,” has detailed the methods used to keep developing nations indebted and subservient to Western economic policies.

“I can’t imagine economic hitmen, like I once was, not operating in countries like India and Bangladesh,” Perkins admitted, underscoring the likelihood that India remains a battleground for covert financial coercion.

The strategy is clear—trap countries in debt through high-interest loans, tie infrastructure projects to American firms, and use policy advisory roles to ensure that economic decisions favor U.S. interests. These tactics have long been used in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and India appears to be no exception.

India’s Counteroffensive and the Path Forward

Under Modi’s leadership, India has aggressively pushed back against foreign interference. The government has tightened regulations on foreign-funded NGOs, scrutinized international grants, and restricted organizations that appear to serve external interests over India’s own development goals.

While these steps have helped in reclaiming India’s sovereignty, revelations about USAID’s alleged activities prove that the challenge is far from over. The country must remain vigilant against external forces that attempt to shape its political narrative and economic policies to their advantage.

The accusations against USAID paint a troubling picture of how international aid organizations can be weaponized to serve hidden agendas. What is often presented as benevolence or humanitarian work is, in reality, a sophisticated strategy of influence and control.

As India rises as a global power, it must fortify itself against such covert interventions. The battle is not just about development aid—it’s about safeguarding national sovereignty, ensuring fair democratic processes, and keeping the country’s economic destiny firmly in Indian hands.