Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: U.S. Agency for International Development

USAID flag outside a building
J. David Ake/Getty Images

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “ A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.”

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

South African divestment is the most famous, and likely most successful, global pressure campaign in recent memory. The enemy was the minority white elites who conceived, implemented and perpetuated apartheid, the incomprehensibly malevolent scheme of legally sanctioned racial separation. These racists got their just desserts when company after company, government after government, and individual after individual pulled their resources. Eventually, the South African economy strained, leaders were toppled and the country began its long march toward moral reclamation.


Except for one problem: Black South Africans, the very souls who were supposedly rescued by the international effort, also suffered. When industries fell, Blacks people were the first to lose their jobs. When the economy teetered, money for education, health care, public services and the like diminished. Even today, almost 40 years after Little Steven refused to play Sun City ” Black South Africans are still trying to catch up.

Many of my generation, me included, participated in the boycotts. I would do so again; apartheid was that deplorable. But now I go into any international development conversation with my eyes wide open. And that is what troubles me about Max Primorac’s discussion of international development assistance in “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” (aka Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration). His conservative ideas, if realized, will cost local jobs, much-needed public services and, yes, even real lives.

There are two basic problems with Project 2025’s plan for future foreign aid:

  1. It will result in a significant decrease in assistance to global south countries (especially if the spigot is turned down overnight), will have a devastating impact on the fragile economies of these regions, peoples’ overall health and well-being, and, in the most resource-scarce parts of the world, the very lives of the vulnerable.
  2. The qualification that aid is contingent on some sort of commitment to American conservative values — anti-abortion, a single conception of family, Christian-based religiosity, rejection of gender identity and so on — will have precisely the opposite effect from what Primorac and his Republican colleagues intend.

Let’s consider each in turn.

First, Project 2025 aims to reduce America’s investment abroad. Primorac refers to it as “streamlining” but it basically amounts to a neo-isolationist approach designed to whittle down budget of the U.S. Agency for International Development. “The next conservative Administration,” he writes, “should scale back USAID’s global footprint by, at a minimum, returning to the agency’s 2019 pre-COVID budget level.”

There is so much waste out there, Primorac says, that a Trump administration can refund billions of dollars to the American taxpayer just by holding non-governmental organizations accountable. The Trump administration can further reduce the USAID budget, Primorac continues, by making conservative cultural values a condition for sponsorship. The implication is that not all assistance programs will abide by right wing musts, and thus dollars will stay home.

That’s reasonable … in theory. Sure, we can all agree that reducing waste and stamping out corruption are good things. But understanding where the waste resides and the corruption plagues are not always apparent, and, in the meantime, the heavy burden of diminished aid rests squarely on local personnel whose employment options are already limited.

Don’t misunderstand me: I am not advocating for continued waste and corruption. What I am advocating for is the local nurse in Burkina Faso whose job it is to administer vaccines as part of the Gavi program, or the Turkmen engineer who is a critical partner in USAID’s Regional Water and Vulnerable Environment Project, or the thousands of native aid workers in the roughly 75 humanitarian emergency areas USAID supports each year. These people inevitably become the casualties of a decreased foreign aid budget. They just do.

Trouble also brews when the U.S. government puts too many conditions on foreign assistance. Primorac talks of the need to “deradicalize” USAID’s programs and structures, by which he means eliminate the Biden era measures intended to expand reproductive rights and improve women’s health, combat climate change, acknowledge different identities and foster democracy.

Ironically, though, the author insists on replacing the radical liberal agenda with an equally sweeping conservative one. Primorac encourages a future Trump administration to withhold aid to any government or non-government actor who “promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism.” Gone then are all DEI initiatives, conceptions of family other the traditional nuclear one, support for religions that snub the New Testament, prescriptions for a healthier planet and, yes, even possibly life-saving vaccines (against measles, TB, meningitis, yellow fever, COVID-19, HIV, diphtheria, hepatitis, etc.). Vaccines, after all, are a favorite conservative scapegoat.

Enter China. Primorac is adamant that “countering China’s development challenge” is a top Trump priority. China has spent tens of billions of dollars on global south development projects in the last five years alone. They won’t stop. In fact, the People’s Republic will likely invest more heavily in Latin America, Africa and Asia over the next decade. Which leads us to ask: Which government does Primorac think will step in when the United States refuses to sponsor green energy initiatives on these continents? Which regime will pounce in Muslim-majority regions when America launches its conservative crusade? Which global power does he imagine will fill the void when the significantly reduced USAID budget forces program closures? I think the answer is pretty obvious.

In the end, a segment of the American population on both the left and the right regularly complains that we can’t do everything around the world, that our resources are finite and our altruism underappreciated. True. But the answer is not to retreat; it’s not to hibernate. Primorac is correct: We should remain vigilant and ruthless about waste and corruption. But we should also maintain and even slightly increase current funding levels. And we should certainly sheath righteous moralism. Indeed, in moments like these it helps to recall the plight of our Black South African brethren.

More articles about Project 2025

    Read More

    Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” Threatens Democracy and Federal Deficit

    Capitol with dollars in the background

    mj0007/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” Threatens Democracy and Federal Deficit

    As a lifelong marketer and Consumer Behavior professor, it’s interesting to observe how people’s opinions change as details of an issue become more apparent. Behavioral change – once information and knowledge increase – is common among people who are open-minded, educated, and critical thinkers.

    For example, a YouGov/Economist poll noted that when President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” was announced, only 43 percent of Americans opposed the 2025 budget package. Less than two weeks after the House passed the 1,116-page bill and citizens learned more about its contents, the disapproval rating increased to 55 percent.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Democracy in Action: May Retrospective
    woman holding signboard
    Photo by Fred Moon on Unsplash

    Democracy in Action: May Retrospective

    Welcome to Democracy in Action, where you will find insights and a discussion with the Fulcrum's collaborators about some of the most talked-about topics.

    Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, this program strives to share many perspectives to widen our readers' viewpoints.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    American flag and money
    Javier Ghersi/Getty Images

    How Government Efficiency Is Supposed To Work

    We’ve seen in the last few months a disastrous display of what happens when amateurs run amok with government resources. The destruction caused by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) crew has harmed the lives of possibly millions of people and will take years to rectify. Some estimates suggest that thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lives have been lost due to the cut in foreign assistance. The Partnership for Public Service, the primary nonprofit advocating for federal employees, has suggested that the so-called “cuts” will result in the government spending more money, not less, due to lost productivity and the departure of experienced workers.

    Yet this month, we got an example of what actual government oversight and genuine cost-cutting look like. The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Government Operations held a hearing with the sexy title, “Safeguarding Procurement: Examining Fraud Risk Management in the Department of Defense.” The hearing included the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (DOD) and an expert with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). For policy wonks in D.C., the GAO is often called the last honest person in Washington. They thoroughly investigate how tax dollars are spent and study how to improve the efficiency of government programs. (Wait … wasn’t that supposed to be the mission of DOGE?)

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Israel Strikes Iran. Will the U.S. Remain on the Sidelines?

    Rescue teams work at damaged buildings in Nobonyad Square following Israeli airstrikes on June 13, 2025 in Tehran, Iran.

    (Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

    Israel Strikes Iran. Will the U.S. Remain on the Sidelines?

    "I want to thank President Trump for his leadership in confronting Iran's nuclear weapons program. He has made clear time and again that Iran cannot have a nuclear enrichment program," said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an address soon after launching Operation Rising Lion, an attack on Iran.

    Netanyahu said that Israel targeted Iran’s main enrichment facility in Natanz and the country’s ballistic missile program, as well as top nuclear scientists and officials, in Friday's strike.

    Keep ReadingShow less