How much food was destroyed due to shutdown of USAID?
Executive summary
A wave of reporting documents that roughly 500 metric tons of taxpayer‑funded emergency food — mostly high‑energy biscuits stored in a Dubai warehouse — expired and was slated for destruction after the U.S. shutdown of USAID, while far larger stocks remain at risk in U.S. warehouses and ports; the precise amount actually incinerated and the total ultimate losses remain contested [1] [2] [3]. Independent counts and agency statements diverge: some officials and lawmakers cite the ~500‑ton figure and associated disposal costs, while the State Department says it transferred hundreds of tons to partners and denies that staff cuts alone caused expiration [4] [5] [6].
1. The headline number: about 500 metric tons flagged for destruction
Multiple outlets reported that nearly 500 metric tons of ready‑to‑use emergency biscuits reached expiration while stored in Dubai and were to be destroyed, a figure cited in The Atlantic and repeated by Reuters, NewsNation, The Independent and Truthout [1] [2] [3] [7]. Coverage places the value of those biscuits at roughly $800,000 and notes the food was intended for children in Afghanistan and Pakistan [2] [8].
2. What that quantity represents in human terms and agency analysis
Reuters and other analysts estimated the biscuits could have fed roughly 27,000 people for a month, and some NGOs warned the loss came at a moment of record acute hunger, underscoring the real impact of losing this particular stockpile [6]. Congressional Democrats argued the loss was morally and fiscally unacceptable and pointed to additional incineration costs of about $125,000 tied to disposal rules — figures drawn from a House Foreign Affairs Committee release and media reporting [5].
3. Much more food was reported to be “at risk,” but at‑risk is not the same as destroyed
Reporting from Reuters found USAID‑run prepositioned warehouses globally held between 60,000 and 66,000 metric tonnes of food — inventories that sources said could see some spoilage if freezes and operational disruptions continued, but this is an estimate of risk rather than confirmed destruction [1]. Other outlets amplified larger, more speculative totals — for example Newsweek relayed claims about up to 500,000 tons or roughly $340 million at stake — but those higher figures come from unnamed sources and represent broader fears about supplies tied up by a funding pause, not verified incinerations [9].
4. Agency pushback and competing narratives
The State Department and some senior officials defended their handling by saying hundreds of tons from the same warehouses were moved to the World Food Programme and denied that USAID staff were categorically barred from coordinating transfers, framing the disposal as a limited, logistical consequence rather than wholesale waste [4]. Aid groups and former USAID staff paint a different picture, saying staff cuts, program freezes and disrupted distribution channels contributed directly to expiration risks [6] [7].
5. The politics shaping the numbers and why uncertainty persists
Lawmakers and advocacy groups use the destruction and “at risk” estimates to argue very different policy points: critics cite the 500‑ton disposal as evidence of catastrophic mismanagement and moral failure after USAID’s shutdown, while administration officials emphasize transfers and dispute causation [5] [4]. Journalistic reporting relies on a mix of internal inventories, anonymous sources and agency statements, which leaves room for contested totals and makes it impossible from available reporting to state precisely how many metric tonnes were definitively incinerated beyond the widely reported ~500‑ton Dubai consignment [1] [2].
6. Bottom line: confirmed loss vs. broader exposure
The best‑supported, repeatedly reported figure for actual food slated for destruction is roughly 500 metric tons of emergency biscuits — a concrete loss that multiple outlets and congressional staffers cite — while tens of thousands of tonnes in USAID prepositioned stocks were documented as at risk of spoilage if disruptions continued, but those larger amounts were not uniformly reported as already destroyed [2] [1]. Where reporting does not provide final disposal reconciliations for all warehouses, this analysis does not assert further destruction beyond what sources have publicly documented [1] [2].