1. CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Title: Agency for International Development (TL;DR Version)

Author: Max Primorac, Former Acting Chief Operating Officer and Assistant to the Administrator at USAID

Chapter 9 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” focuses on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the federal agency responsible for administering U.S. foreign aid. Authored by Max Primorac, a former senior official at USAID during the Trump administration, the chapter argues that the agency has been “deformed” by the Biden Administration’s “divisive political and cultural agenda,” which he claims prioritizes “woke” ideology over American interests and effective development assistance. Primorac outlines a plan to “deradicalize” USAID, reduce its global footprint, and refocus it on promoting conservative values and countering China’s influence in the developing world.

The chapter’s significance lies in its call for a radical shift in U.S. foreign aid policy, away from promoting human rights, gender equality, and climate action, and towards advancing a conservative agenda and countering China. This approach raises serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for USAID to be used as a tool for promoting a partisan agenda, for undermining efforts to address global challenges, and for harming vulnerable populations in developing countries.

2. KEY THEMES & FRAMEWORKS

  • “Deradicalizing” USAID: Primorac calls for “deradicalizing” USAID by eliminating programs and initiatives related to abortion, climate change, and gender equality, arguing that these are “divisive” and “harmful.” This reflects a broader conservative rejection of what they perceive as “woke” ideology and a desire to impose their own values on foreign aid.
  • Countering China: The chapter emphasizes the need to counter China’s growing influence in the developing world, arguing that China’s development model is “authoritarian” and “exploitative.” This aligns with the broader conservative focus on countering China’s global rise and promoting American interests abroad.
  • Promoting Conservative Values: Primorac advocates for using USAID to promote conservative social values, such as opposition to abortion and support for traditional families. This suggests a desire to use foreign aid as a tool for advancing a partisan agenda.
  • Reducing Foreign Aid: Primorac calls for scaling back USAID’s global footprint and returning to its 2019 budget level, arguing that the Biden Administration’s budget increases are “wasteful.” This reflects a broader conservative skepticism towards foreign aid and a preference for reducing government spending.
  • Empowering Faith-Based Organizations: Primorac advocates for increasing funding to faith-based organizations, arguing that they are more effective than secular organizations in providing development assistance. This aligns with the conservative support for faith-based initiatives and a belief that they are better equipped to address social problems.

3. DETAILED BREAKDOWN

3.1 Introduction: A “Deformed” Agency (286)

  • Primorac argues that USAID has been “deformed” by the Biden Administration’s “divisive political and cultural agenda.”
  • He criticizes the agency for promoting “abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systematic racism.”
  • 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 systematic racism.”

3.2 The Challenge: Countering China (288)

  • Primorac identifies China as a major challenge to U.S. interests in the developing world, arguing that China is using its economic power to “coerce and corrupt” other countries.
  • He calls for restoring the Trump Administration’s “Clear Choice” initiative, which contrasted American values with Chinese “authoritarianism.”
  • Quote: “China is using its economic power to coerce and corrupt other countries, and it is seeking to undermine American influence in the developing world.”

3.3 The Solution: “Deradicalizing” USAID (287)

  • Primorac outlines a plan to “deradicalize” USAID by:
    • Eliminating “Woke” Programs: Eliminating programs and initiatives related to abortion, climate change, and gender equality.
    • Promoting Conservative Values: Using USAID to promote conservative social values, such as opposition to abortion and support for traditional families.
    • Reducing Foreign Aid: Scaling back USAID’s global footprint and returning to its 2019 budget level.
    • Empowering Faith-Based Organizations: Increasing funding to faith-based organizations.
    • Focusing on Core Missions: Refocusing USAID on its core missions of promoting economic growth, democracy, and humanitarian assistance.

3.4 Specific Policy Recommendations (292)

  • Repeal the “Mexico City Policy”: Repeal the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibits U.S. funding for organizations that provide or refer for abortions. (292)
  • Eliminate Climate Change Programs: Eliminate all USAID programs related to climate change. (292)
  • Defund Gender Equality Programs: Defund all USAID programs related to gender equality. (292)
  • Increase Funding to Faith-Based Organizations: Increase funding to faith-based organizations. (292)
  • Reduce USAID’s Global Footprint: Reduce the number of countries where USAID operates. (287)

3.5 Conclusion: Restoring USAID’s Mission (294)

  • Primorac concludes by arguing that his recommendations are necessary to “restore USAID’s mission” and to “make it a more effective tool for advancing American interests.”
  • He claims that a reformed USAID will be “more accountable, more transparent, and more focused on results.”

4. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Repeal the “Mexico City Policy”: Repeal the “Mexico City Policy,” which prohibits U.S. funding for organizations that provide or refer for abortions. (292)
  • Eliminate Climate Change Programs: Eliminate all USAID programs related to climate change. (292)
  • Defund Gender Equality Programs: Defund all USAID programs related to gender equality. (292)
  • Increase Funding to Faith-Based Organizations: Increase funding to faith-based organizations. (292)
  • Reduce USAID’s Global Footprint: Reduce the number of countries where USAID operates. (287)

5. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

  • “Deradicalize” USAID: Eliminate programs and initiatives that promote what Primorac perceives as “woke” ideology, such as abortion, climate change, and gender equality.
  • Counter China: Use USAID to counter China’s growing influence in the developing world and to promote American interests.
  • Promote Conservative Values: Use USAID to advance a conservative social agenda, including opposition to abortion and support for traditional families.
  • Reduce Foreign Aid: Reduce the amount of U.S. taxpayer dollars spent on foreign aid.
  • Empower Faith-Based Organizations: Increase the role of faith-based organizations in providing development assistance.

6. CROSS-REFERENCES

  • Agenda 47: The chapter’s emphasis on “deradicalizing” USAID, countering China, and promoting conservative values aligns with the broader goals outlined in Trump’s Agenda 47.
  • Project 2025, Chapter 4: This chapter, focusing on the Department of Defense, complements Chapter 9 by highlighting the importance of countering China’s military and economic power.
  • Project 2025, Chapter 6: This chapter, focusing on the Department of State, supports Chapter 9 by advocating for a more confrontational approach to foreign policy and a reduction in U.S. involvement in international organizations, which Primorac views as promoting a “globalist” agenda.

7. POTENTIAL IMPACTS

  • Harm to Vulnerable Populations: The proposed cuts to foreign aid and the shift in funding priorities could harm vulnerable populations in developing countries who rely on U.S. assistance for essential services like health care, education, and disaster relief.
  • Erosion of Women’s Rights: The elimination of programs related to abortion and gender equality could undermine efforts to promote women’s rights and reproductive health in developing countries.
  • Exacerbating Climate Change: The rejection of climate change initiatives could undermine efforts to address this global challenge and harm vulnerable communities that are already experiencing the effects of climate change.
  • Promoting Religious Discrimination: The emphasis on funding faith-based organizations could lead to discrimination against beneficiaries who do not share the religious beliefs of those organizations.
  • Undermining American Leadership: The chapter’s confrontational tone and its focus on countering China could undermine America’s global leadership and damage its relationships with developing countries.

8. CRITICISMS & COUNTERARGUMENTS

  • Ideological Agenda: Critics might argue that the chapter’s recommendations are driven by a narrow ideological agenda and that they would undermine USAID’s effectiveness in promoting development and humanitarian assistance.
  • Harm to U.S. Interests: Opponents might argue that reducing foreign aid and taking a more confrontational approach to China would actually harm U.S. interests by creating instability, fueling anti-American sentiment, and ceding influence to China.
  • Disregard for Global Challenges: Critics might argue that the chapter’s rejection of initiatives related to climate change, gender equality, and global health demonstrates a disregard for pressing global challenges.
  • Religious Discrimination: Opponents might argue that increasing funding to faith-based organizations could lead to discrimination against beneficiaries who do not share the religious beliefs of those organizations.

9. KEY QUOTES

  • “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 systematic racism.” (286) This quote reflects Primorac’s view of USAID as having been corrupted by “woke” ideology.
  • “China is using its economic power to coerce and corrupt other countries, and it is seeking to undermine American influence in the developing world.” (288) This quote highlights the chapter’s focus on countering China’s influence.
  • “We must repeal the Mexico City Policy and eliminate all USAID programs related to abortion.” (292) This quote reveals the chapter’s opposition to abortion and its desire to use USAID to promote a conservative social agenda.
  • “We must increase funding to faith-based organizations, which are often more effective than secular organizations in providing development assistance.” (292) This quote reflects the chapter’s support for faith-based initiatives.
  • “We must reduce USAID’s global footprint and refocus it on its core missions.” (287) This quote highlights the chapter’s desire to shrink USAID and to prioritize a narrower set of objectives.

10. SUMMARY & SIGNIFICANCE

Chapter 9 of “Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership” outlines a plan to transform USAID into an agency that prioritizes conservative values and American interests over the needs of developing countries. The chapter’s recommendations would likely lead to a reduction in foreign aid, a shift in funding priorities toward faith-based organizations, and a more confrontational approach to development assistance, particularly with respect to China. These proposals raise serious concerns among Democrats about the potential for USAID to be used as a tool for promoting a partisan agenda and for undermining efforts to address global challenges like poverty, disease, and climate change.

This chapter, along with Chapters 4, 6, and 8, reveals a clear pattern in “Project 2025”: a desire to use the power of the federal government to advance a conservative agenda, even if it means sacrificing the interests of vulnerable populations, undermining democratic norms, and eroding America’s global standing. The proposals outlined in this chapter could have a profound impact on the lives of millions of people around the world, raising serious concerns among Democrats about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and development assistance.