“Agency for International Development” Between the Lines

Summary: Section 2.9 of Project 2025, titled “Agency for International Development,” focuses on reforming the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The section outlines a shift in the agency’s approach to foreign aid, aiming to realign its mission with conservative values and U.S. national security interests. The proposals emphasize cutting back on programs that are viewed as promoting progressive agendas, reducing the agency’s budget, and refocusing efforts on countering China’s global influence. Additionally, the section suggests reforms in procurement processes, a reduction in the scope of humanitarian assistance, and a return to traditional family values in USAID’s programs.

In-Depth Analysis:

1. Realigning USAID with U.S. National Security Interests:
   • Policy Proposal: The section advocates for aligning USAID’s efforts more closely with U.S. foreign policy, particularly in countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It suggests enhancing programs that support U.S. strategic interests while cutting funding for those that do not align with these goals.
   • Concerning Implications: While aligning foreign aid with national security interests can be beneficial, this approach risks politicizing humanitarian assistance. By prioritizing geopolitical objectives over the humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations, USAID might compromise its mission to promote global development and stability. Additionally, the focus on countering China could overshadow other pressing global issues, such as poverty, health crises, and climate change.
   • Potential Consequences: A shift toward a more security-driven foreign aid strategy could lead to reduced effectiveness in addressing the root causes of instability, such as poverty and poor governance. This approach might also alienate international partners and reduce the U.S.’s influence in regions where humanitarian needs are critical. It could result in aid being used as a tool for political leverage rather than for genuine development assistance.
2. Reducing USAID’s Global Footprint and Budget:
   • Policy Proposal: The document calls for scaling back USAID’s budget to pre-pandemic levels and reducing its global footprint, particularly in programs deemed to promote progressive agendas such as climate change and gender equality.
   • Concerning Implications: Drastically reducing USAID’s budget and global presence could undermine the agency’s ability to respond to global crises and support long-term development goals. This reduction could disproportionately impact vulnerable populations who rely on USAID’s programs for basic needs like food, water, and healthcare. The focus on eliminating progressive agendas might lead to the exclusion of critical issues such as women’s rights and environmental sustainability.
   • Potential Consequences: Cutting USAID’s budget and scope could lead to a significant reduction in the U.S.’s ability to influence global development and humanitarian efforts. This could open the door for other global powers, such as China, to fill the void left by reduced U.S. engagement. Additionally, it could worsen global poverty and instability, leading to more conflicts and crises that ultimately impact U.S. national security.
3. Reforming Procurement and Partnering with Local Organizations:
   • Policy Proposal: The section suggests reforms in USAID’s procurement processes to reduce reliance on large international NGOs and contractors, instead partnering more with local and faith-based organizations to improve efficiency and outcomes.
   • Concerning Implications: While partnering with local organizations can enhance the effectiveness of aid delivery, it also presents challenges in terms of capacity and accountability. Local organizations might lack the resources and expertise to manage large-scale aid programs, leading to inefficiencies and potential mismanagement of funds. Additionally, the emphasis on faith-based organizations might lead to the exclusion of secular or non-Christian groups, potentially violating principles of inclusivity and non-discrimination.
   • Potential Consequences: While the shift to local partnerships could increase community ownership and sustainability of projects, it could also result in uneven quality of service delivery and reduced oversight. This approach might also fuel accusations of favoritism and reduce the diversity of perspectives and solutions in USAID’s work. Moreover, the potential exclusion of non-faith-based organizations could limit the agency’s ability to address diverse community needs.
4. Scaling Back Humanitarian Assistance:
   • Policy Proposal: The document argues for scaling back USAID’s humanitarian assistance, particularly in conflict zones where aid might be diverted or misused, and instead focusing on shorter-term emergency responses.
   • Concerning Implications: Reducing long-term humanitarian assistance in favor of short-term emergency relief could undermine efforts to address the underlying causes of crises, such as poverty, conflict, and poor governance. This approach might also lead to a cycle of dependency, where communities are repeatedly exposed to emergencies without long-term solutions being implemented. Moreover, withdrawing from complex humanitarian environments could leave vulnerable populations without critical support.
   • Potential Consequences: Scaling back humanitarian assistance could lead to worsening conditions in conflict zones, increasing the likelihood of prolonged instability and human suffering. This could also harm the U.S.’s reputation as a global leader in humanitarian aid and reduce its influence in international forums. The lack of long-term support could result in more frequent and severe humanitarian crises, ultimately requiring more costly interventions in the future.
5. Promoting Traditional Family Values and Pro-Life Policies:
   • Policy Proposal: The section calls for the promotion of traditional family values and pro-life policies within USAID’s programs, including the elimination of support for reproductive rights and gender equality initiatives.
   • Concerning Implications: The promotion of traditional family values and the elimination of support for reproductive rights and gender equality could undermine the progress made in advancing women’s rights and gender equality worldwide. This shift might also alienate international partners and communities that have different cultural norms and values. The emphasis on pro-life policies could lead to the restriction of access to essential reproductive health services, particularly for women in vulnerable situations.
   • Potential Consequences: Prioritizing traditional family values and pro-life policies could result in reduced support for women’s health and empowerment, potentially exacerbating gender inequalities and limiting women’s access to education and economic opportunities. This approach could also harm the U.S.’s relationships with international partners who support reproductive rights and gender equality, reducing the effectiveness of USAID’s programs and its global influence.

Conclusion Statement: The recommendations in the “Agency for International Development” section of Project 2025 propose significant changes to the mission, scope, and operations of USAID. While these reforms aim to align the agency’s work more closely with conservative values and U.S. national security interests, they raise serious concerns about the potential politicization of humanitarian aid, the reduction of support for vulnerable populations, and the rollback of progress in areas such as gender equality and reproductive rights. As these policies are considered, it is essential to ensure that USAID continues to fulfill its mission of promoting global development and stability in a way that is inclusive, effective, and aligned with the principles of human rights and dignity.

Potential Concerns: Agency for International Development

Politicization of Aid

• Risk of Political Influence: Aligning USAID’s activities with U.S. foreign policy and national security priorities introduces the risk of politicization. Aid distribution could be influenced more by political considerations than by humanitarian needs, undermining USAID’s mission to promote sustainable development and alleviate poverty.

• Impact on Neutrality and Credibility: If USAID’s operations are seen as politically driven, it can erode trust with local partners and communities. The perception of bias can make it difficult to build and maintain relationships necessary for effective collaboration, reducing the impact of aid programs.

Operational Efficiency and Streamlining

• Challenges of Implementation: Streamlining operations and adopting private sector practices can improve efficiency, but it must be managed carefully to avoid negative impacts. Overzealous cuts or poorly executed consolidations can disrupt ongoing programs, harming beneficiaries.

• Balancing Efficiency with Effectiveness: There is a risk that an overemphasis on efficiency could lead to inappropriate or ineffective solutions for complex development issues. Balancing operational efficiency with the need for high-quality, context-specific program implementation is essential to maintain the effectiveness of aid delivery.

Accountability and Oversight

• Administrative Burden: Enhancing accountability mechanisms is crucial for ensuring effective aid use, but it can also introduce additional administrative burdens. Rigorous monitoring and evaluation systems can be resource-intensive and time-consuming, potentially detracting from the actual implementation of development programs.

• Risk of Political Control: There is a concern that increased accountability measures could be used for political control or micromanagement. Ensuring that accountability processes are fair, objective, and focused on genuine performance improvement, rather than political oversight, is vital.

Funding Stability

• Dependence on Private Sector and Innovative Financing: Revising the funding model to secure more stable financial support through private sector partnerships and innovative financing mechanisms introduces risks. Dependence on private donors can lead to conflicts of interest, where donor interests might influence USAID’s priorities and activities.

• Risk of Funding Volatility: Reliance on new funding sources can introduce volatility. Private sector funding and innovative financing mechanisms may be less reliable than traditional government funding, leading to potential disruptions in program continuity and effectiveness.

Balancing Economic Growth and Humanitarian Needs

• Potential Neglect of Immediate Needs: Focusing on programs that promote economic growth and self-reliance is essential, but there is a risk that this emphasis might divert resources from addressing immediate humanitarian needs. Balancing long-term economic goals with short-term humanitarian assistance is crucial to ensure comprehensive and effective aid delivery.

• Sustainability and Local Ownership: While promoting local solutions and ownership is beneficial, ensuring that local partners have the capacity and resources to sustain programs independently is a challenge. Supporting capacity-building initiatives and fostering sustainable development practices are essential to achieving long-term success.

Conclusion

The proposed reforms for the Agency for International Development under Project 2025 aim to enhance USAID’s effectiveness in delivering foreign aid and development assistance. While these reforms offer potential benefits in terms of strategic alignment, operational efficiency, accountability, and economic growth, they also introduce significant concerns. Addressing the risks of politicization, ensuring funding stability, managing operational disruptions, balancing efficiency with effectiveness, and maintaining a focus on both immediate and long-term needs are crucial for the successful implementation of these reforms. Through thoughtful and well-managed changes, USAID can continue to play a vital role in promoting sustainable development and supporting global health and economic growth.

Breaking Down the Concerns: Agency for International Development

• Politicization of Aid: There’s a risk that aid might be given based on U.S. political goals rather than where it’s most needed. This could make people in other countries think USAID is more about politics than helping, damaging its trust and effectiveness.

• Operational Efficiency: Trying to save money and be more efficient is good, but if not done right, it could mess up current aid projects. Overly aggressive cuts or changes might stop help from reaching those in need.

• Accountability and Oversight: Keeping track of how aid is used is important, but it can lead to a lot of extra paperwork. This might slow down actual help. Also, there’s a worry that new rules could be used to control the agency for political reasons.

• Funding Stability: Getting money from private companies or new sources sounds good but can be unreliable. If donors change their minds, USAID might suddenly lose funds, causing problems for ongoing projects.

• Balancing Needs: Focusing on long-term growth and self-reliance is great, but it shouldn’t mean ignoring immediate crises. There’s a risk that urgent health, education, and food needs might get less attention and funding.

Red Flags in the Reforms: Analyzing Troubling Quotes

• Quote:: “The next conservative Administration should scale back USAID’s global footprint by, at a minimum, returning to the agency’s 2019 pre–COVID-19 pandemic budget level. It should deradicalize USAID’s programs and structures and build on the conservative reforms instituted by the Trump Administration. This will require working closely with the U.S. Congress to make deep cuts in the international affairs “150 Account” while granting USAID greater flexibility in spending its appropriated funds to achieve better developmental outcomes” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 240).

  • Summarize Quote:: The proposal is to reduce USAID’s budget and scope, remove progressive elements, and focus on conservative priorities by cutting funding and giving the agency more freedom in spending.

  • Explanation:: This quote is concerning because it suggests a significant reduction in foreign aid, potentially leaving vulnerable populations without necessary support. The term “deradicalize” implies a dismissal of progressive initiatives, which may marginalize efforts related to human rights, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. The focus on conservative reforms and budget cuts could lead to prioritizing cost-saving over effective and equitable development assistance, potentially harming international relations and the global reputation of the United States.

• Quote:: “The next conservative Administration should immediately implement language on key policy topics as standard provisions in all grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts. These provisions should include language on implementing the Policy on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance, imposing conditions on funding to multilateral organizations, and increasing accountability and transparency” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 248).

  • Summarize Quote:: The administration plans to enforce specific policy conditions on all foreign aid agreements, including anti-abortion policies and stricter conditions on funding international organizations.

  • Explanation:: This directive could restrict funding to organizations that offer comprehensive reproductive health services, including abortion. It reflects a broader agenda to impose conservative values on international aid, potentially limiting access to essential healthcare services for women in many countries. This policy could have severe implications for women’s health and rights, particularly in regions with limited healthcare infrastructure.

• Quote:: “The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 240).

  • Summarize Quote:: The statement accuses the Biden Administration of using USAID to promote controversial issues like abortion, climate action, gender rights, and anti-racism, framing them as divisive.

  • Explanation:: Labeling crucial global issues like climate change, gender equality, and systemic racism as “divisive” and “radical” suggests a dismissal of these important concerns. This rhetoric may indicate a shift towards ignoring or actively opposing initiatives that address these issues, potentially harming international efforts to combat climate change, promote gender equality, and address racial injustices. Such a stance could also alienate global partners and undermine the United States’ role in promoting human rights and sustainable development.

• Quote:: “The next conservative Administration should rescind all climate policies from its foreign aid programs (specifically USAID’s Climate Strategy 2022–20307); shut down the agency’s offices, programs, and directives designed to advance the Paris Climate Agreement; and narrowly limit funding to traditional climate mitigation efforts” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 243).

  • Summarize Quote:: The plan is to eliminate USAID’s climate policies and withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, focusing only on traditional climate mitigation efforts.

  • Explanation:: This proposal indicates a disregard for the urgent global need to address climate change. By rescinding all climate policies and withdrawing from international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement, the administration could severely undermine global climate action efforts. This decision would not only affect global climate policy but also damage international relationships and the U.S.’s credibility as a leader in global environmental efforts. The focus on traditional mitigation efforts, without innovative or progressive measures, may be insufficient to address the growing climate crisis.

• Quote: “Over the years, USAID expanded the number of countries assisted, the scope and size of its activities, and especially its budget. The Trump Administration faced an institution marred by bureaucratic inertia: programmatic incoherence; wasteful spending; and dependence on huge awards to a self-serving and politicized aid industrial complex of United Nations agencies, international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and for-profit contractors” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 239).

  • Summarize Quote: The text criticizes USAID for expanding its activities and budget while being inefficient and dependent on large, self-serving organizations.

  • Explanation: This quote portrays USAID as a bureaucratic entity plagued by inefficiencies and wasteful spending. It suggests that the agency is overly reliant on large, politically motivated organizations, implying a need for reform. However, the proposed shift away from established NGOs and UN agencies could disrupt effective aid delivery, reducing support for vulnerable populations and undermining longstanding international partnerships.

• Quote: “The next conservative Administration should restore and build on the Trump Administration’s counter-China infrastructure at USAID, end the climate policy fanaticism that advantages Beijing, and assess bilateral aid through the lens of U.S. national security interests” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 242).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote calls for a renewed focus on countering China through USAID, ending climate policies seen as advantageous to China, and prioritizing U.S. national security in aid decisions.

  • Explanation: This statement emphasizes a confrontational stance towards China, prioritizing national security over collaborative global development efforts. Ending climate policies could hinder global climate action and exacerbate environmental challenges. The focus on countering China might shift resources away from other important development goals, potentially compromising USAID’s broader mission.

• Quote: “USAID should cease its war on fossil fuels in the developing world and support the responsible management of oil and gas reserves as the quickest way to end wrenching poverty and the need for open-ended foreign aid” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 243).

  • Summarize Quote: The quote argues for stopping efforts to reduce fossil fuel use in developing countries and instead supporting oil and gas management to alleviate poverty and reduce the need for foreign aid.

  • Explanation: Promoting fossil fuel use contradicts global efforts to combat climate change and transition to renewable energy. While fossil fuels may provide short-term economic benefits, their long-term environmental impact is detrimental. Supporting fossil fuels over renewable energy could entrench developing countries in unsustainable practices, delaying necessary transitions to cleaner energy sources and exacerbating climate-related vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

The subsection “Agency for International Development” from Project 2025 outlines a conservative vision for USAID that includes significant budget cuts, removal of progressive initiatives, and a focus on national security, particularly in countering China. Key concerns include the potential for these changes to undermine the effectiveness of USAID’s global aid efforts, weaken international partnerships, and roll back critical progress on issues such as climate change, gender equality, and systemic racism. The rhetoric against addressing these issues as “divisive” and “radical” signals a shift towards ignoring or actively opposing initiatives that address these important global challenges.

The immunity ruling’s potential amplification of these plans could further entrench these conservative reforms, making it difficult to challenge or reverse policies that prioritize short-term national interests over global well-being. This could lead to a less effective and more politically driven foreign aid strategy that compromises USAID’s mission and the broader goals of international development and humanitarian assistance. The impact of such a shift would likely be felt most acutely by vulnerable populations worldwide, who rely on USAID’s support for basic needs and development opportunities. Additionally, the U.S.’s global leadership and credibility in promoting human rights and sustainable development could be significantly undermined, with long-term consequences for international relations and global stability.

“Agency for International Development” in a Nutshell

The “Agency for International Development” section of Project 2025 outlines a radical restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to align it with conservative values and national security interests. The proposed changes raise significant concerns across multiple areas.

Key Concerns:

1. Politicization of Foreign Aid: The plan calls for a realignment of USAID’s mission to prioritize U.S. foreign policy and national security, particularly in countering China’s influence. This shift risks turning humanitarian aid into a political tool, where decisions on aid distribution could be driven more by geopolitical objectives than by the needs of vulnerable populations. This politicization could undermine the credibility of USAID and its ability to act as a neutral provider of aid, potentially damaging relationships with international partners and diminishing the agency’s effectiveness in promoting global stability.

2. Reduction in Humanitarian Assistance: The document advocates for scaling back USAID’s global footprint and budget to pre-pandemic levels, effectively cutting humanitarian assistance and focusing more narrowly on short-term emergency relief. This reduction in aid could leave many long-term crises, particularly those caused by conflicts, inadequately addressed, exacerbating human suffering and instability in already fragile regions. The emphasis on emergency responses over sustained development efforts may lead to a cycle of dependency, where immediate crises are addressed, but the underlying causes of poverty and instability remain unresolved.

3. Dismissal of Progressive Initiatives: The proposal explicitly targets the elimination of programs that promote what it describes as “progressive agendas,” including climate change, gender equality, and reproductive rights. This rollback could have severe implications for women’s rights, environmental sustainability, and global efforts to combat climate change. By sidelining these critical issues, USAID risks regressing on significant global progress in these areas, potentially leading to increased gender inequality, environmental degradation, and global health crises.

4. Focus on Traditional Family Values: The section promotes a return to traditional family values, which includes the elimination of support for reproductive rights and gender equality initiatives. This conservative approach could marginalize vulnerable populations, particularly women and LGBTQ+ individuals, and limit their access to essential health services and opportunities. The emphasis on pro-life policies within USAID’s programs may restrict access to reproductive healthcare, potentially leading to negative health outcomes for women in developing countries.

5. Reduction in Climate Initiatives: The document proposes rescinding all climate policies from USAID’s foreign aid programs and ceasing collaboration with organizations that advocate for climate action. This stance disregards the urgent need to address climate change, particularly in regions most vulnerable to its effects. By focusing only on traditional climate mitigation efforts, the U.S. could undermine global climate action, damage international relationships, and reduce its influence in global environmental policy discussions.

6. Shift to Local Partnerships: While the proposal to partner more with local organizations, including faith-based groups, could enhance aid delivery and community ownership, it also presents challenges. Local organizations may lack the capacity to manage large-scale programs, leading to potential inefficiencies and mismanagement. Additionally, the focus on faith-based organizations could exclude secular or non-Christian groups, raising concerns about inclusivity and fairness in aid distribution.

7. Concerns over Accountability and Oversight: The emphasis on increasing accountability and transparency in USAID’s operations is double-edged. While these measures are crucial for ensuring effective aid use, there is a risk that they could be used for political control, potentially leading to micromanagement and the erosion of the agency’s independence. Additionally, the introduction of stricter oversight could increase the administrative burden on aid programs, potentially slowing down aid delivery.

Overall Implications:

The proposed reforms to USAID under Project 2025 represent a significant departure from the agency’s traditional role in promoting global development and humanitarian assistance. By prioritizing U.S. national security and conservative values, the plan risks politicizing aid, reducing support for vulnerable populations, and rolling back progress on critical global issues such as gender equality and climate change. These changes could diminish the effectiveness of USAID’s programs, alienate international partners, and weaken the U.S.’s global leadership in promoting human rights and sustainable development. The overall direction of these reforms suggests a more insular and politically motivated approach to foreign aid, which could have long-lasting negative impacts on global stability and development.