In a Johannesburg laboratory, the next clues to an HIV vaccine were sitting in a freezer. An experimental formulation had provoked an immune response in rabbits; researchers revised it and sent four new versions for further testing. But the animal blood samples containing their results remained untouched. The order to stop work had arrived from the United States, Reuters reported.
The BRILLIANT Consortium’s Sudden Standstill
The suspension halted work within BRILLIANT, an African-led HIV-vaccine consortium supported entirely by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In 2023, USAID awarded the South African Medical Research Council $45.6 million over five years for a partnership involving scientists from eight African countries. According to the council's original announcement, its aim was both to pursue a vaccine and to establish the laboratory expertise, clinical-trial capacity, and research leadership to develop one locally.
At the University of the Witwatersrand, researchers were using messenger RNA, the technology underlying some COVID-19 vaccines, to mimic rare HIV-neutralizing antibody responses identified in two South African patients. The initial results in rabbits were encouraging, though nowhere near proof of protection in people. Separately, another BRILLIANT candidate, combining two vaccine substances developed in the United States and the Netherlands, was being prepared for human testing in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda. That trial, too, was suspended before vaccinations began.
The interruption followed President Donald Trump's January 20 executive order pausing foreign-development assistance for 90 days while reviewing programs for efficiency and alignment with U.S. foreign policy. On February 7, he separately ordered agencies to halt aid to South Africa, citing objections to its land-reform policy and its case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. The administration maintained that American assistance must serve American interests; the White House order allowed agency heads some discretion to permit assistance. Reuters reported that the State Department had not responded to its request for comment on BRILLIANT.
The crisis extended beyond vaccine discovery. A February 6 New York Times investigation identified dozens of frozen clinical studies with volunteers already enrolled. In Vulindlela, South Africa, 22-year-old Asanda Zondi was told that a silicone vaginal ring being studied for HIV and pregnancy prevention needed to be removed. Her trial was separate from BRILLIANT. Investigator Leila Mansoor decided to remove the rings despite the stop-work restrictions, prioritizing the volunteers' welfare.
There were limited waivers for lifesaving HIV services. Yet Linda-Gail Bekker, director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, told NPR on February 18 that some CDC-funded operations were moving toward reopening while USAID-supported programs still faced uncertainty. In a STAT commentary, bioethicists Ruth Faden and Nancy Kass warned that experimental devices, medications, and participants could not safely be abandoned without follow-up. By February 18, there was no clear date for BRILLIANT to restart.
The People Outside the Budget
Zondi's account shows why a suspended study is different from an unopened laboratory. Speaking to The New York Times on February 6, she said, "We don’t really know the real reason of pausing the study." The decision had crossed borders and institutions before reaching someone whose body was already involved. For a young participant, informed consent becomes strangely incomplete if researchers can explain how a device works but cannot explain whether her study will continue.
The generational stakes are unusually direct. According to a 2024 U.S. National Institutes of Health report, twice as many young women aged 15–24 as young men of the same age were living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. These are not simply future beneficiaries of scientific progress. They are part of the population whose participation makes progress possible.
BRILLIANT was designed to include affected communities in its decision-making bodies. Yet an African-led research program could still have its timetable decided in Washington. There is a difference between allowing local scientists to lead an experiment and giving their institutions the power to sustain it.
Our generation has grown used to technologies being launched, tested, updated, and discontinued. But a clinical trial cannot be treated like an abandoned software pilot: its participants cannot be switched off. Governments are entitled to reconsider spending priorities; that does not settle what they owe to people already recruited into their research. Ethical withdrawal may require money for monitoring, safe device removal, treatment transitions, and direct explanations, even if the original project ends.
A research protocol should anticipate a funding cut as carefully as it anticipates a side effect.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
