Report: Hearing “The USAID Betrayal”

Authors: Luca Iasinschi

Hearing Information:

Committee: House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Title: The USAID Betrayal

Date: 2/13/2025

Website: https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/the-usaid-betrayal/

Witnesses:

1. The Honorable Ted Yoho

a. Former U.S. Representative Florida’s 3rd Congressional District

2. Max Primorac

a. Former Acting Chief Operating Officer, U.S. Agency for International Development

b. Senior Research Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation

3. The Honorable Andrew Natsios

a. Former Administrator, U.S. Agency for International Development

Executive Summary:

The House Foreign Affairs Committee’s hearing titled “The USAID Betrayal”, saw the examination of three witnesses connected to the work of USAID. During the nearly 5-hour hearing the committee discussed issues surrounding USAID, its programs, its inefficiencies, how to best reform these issues, issues with the current approach to reform, and the dangers of USAID’s absence. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and Democrats found themselves on opposing sides of the debate. Republicans, in line with President Trump’s decision-making, generally took a much more unforgiving approach to fixing USAID, which disregarded efforts for reform, focusing on a full reconstruction of USAID. The source of their displeasure with USAID was its waste, inefficiency, and promotion of far-left, “woke” ideals. Democrats, meanwhile, emphasized the benefits that USAID brought to both the international community and to American citizens while opposing radical measures for reform, such as those proposed by President Trump. Their discomfort came from the abruptness of the cutoff of USAID, the lack of clarity around its substitution, and from the repercussions of the absence of USAIDs on the global arena.

“President Trump, in my opinion, is absolutely making America immeasurably stronger by gutting USAID and gutting the State Department forthcoming.”

- Chairman Brian Mast (R-FL)

The first hearing of the 119^th Congress’ House Committee on Foreign Affairs took place on February 13, 2025, and was titled The USAID Betrayal. This hearing was called in the midst of the Trump Administration’s freezing of all foreign assistance, the firing of 17 independent inspectors general (including the inspector general of USAID), and the attempted mass termination of all but 300 of the roughly 13,000 employees of USAID. The discussion in the hearing was defined by the hyperpolarization of its members as it seemed that each side was working with entirely different sets of facts and priorities on how to best move forward. One topic that did unite the representatives was the need for foreign aid and its usefulness as a tool promoting American soft power abroad. Other issues, like Elon Musk’s and DOGE’s involvement in efforts to “streamline” the American government, were also partially addressed as they had a direct impact on USAID.

The most prominent argument and issue among Republican representatives surrounded the various “woke, liberal, leftist” agendas being promoted by USAID in its various missions. It was their position that USAID was to provide “lifesaving aid” in a manner that aligned with American interests abroad, in an efficient manner. They pointed out that some of USAID’s missions were not lifesaving, unnecessary, and damaged the reputation of USAID internationally. Examples of dangerous, unnecessary, or wasteful programs Republicans were referring to included, but were not limited to, a $50 million shipment of condoms to Hamas (proven falsehood), $25 thousand-dollar drag show seminar in Ecuador, $2 million for sex-change surgeries in Guatemala, $22 million to increase tourism in Tunisia and Egypt (program started during Trump administration), funding for LGBT integration and representation, funding for EV charging stations in Vietnam, and funding for circumcisions (supported by Republican and Democrat administrations, Trump included, 60% reduction in risk of female to male transmission of HIV). Requiring nations to adopt certain policies, such as legalization of abortion or pro-LGBTQ legislation in order to receive USAID aid was also criticized. For these reasons, it was the position of most Republicans that the corruption and rot within USAID was so deeply entrenched that the only way to solve it was tear it all down and rebuild it from the ground up. Rhetoric implying and encouraging the end, demise, or “funeral” of USAID was used frequently. While acknowledging some of the successful programs, such as PEPFAR, Republicans referenced a waiver program introduced by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This program would allow organizations and projects that have proven their worth to continue receiving crucial funding and continue functioning.

Arguments from the Democratic side of the aisle focused largely on the positive work USAID has done and while not opposed to reforming USAID, asserted that the current method of reform is unlawful and causes more harm than good. According to Democrats the shutdown of USAID has stopped critical work on democracy promotion, the transfer of lifesaving humanitarian aid, and the prevention and mitigation of diseases ranging from Ebola to Polio to HIV/AIDS. Many Democrats raised concerns that the absence of the USAID on the foreign aid arena would create gaps that would be eagerly filled by the U.S.’s adversaries, including Russia and China. They argued that the shuttering of USAID was a betrayal of the U.S.’s allies, the mission driven employees of USAID, global democracy, those in dire need of humanitarian aid, the advancement of global women’s rights, and our values and commitments as a nation. To emphasize this point, Democrats repeatedly evoked imagery of American farmers’ produce rotting in ports and elderly individuals dying because their medicine was cut off. Beyond the benefits of USAID, the current approaches to reform being used also drew heavy criticism. Actions such as the firing of the Inspector General and the mass firing of staff would only increase waste and fraud and endanger American international interests and national security. Democrats expressed a desire for the reform and oversight of USAID to be led by Congress, in cooperation between both Republicans and Democrats, not by the Executive branch or Elon Musk. While remaining supportive of reform Democrats were more inclined to use the existing paths to achieve that reform and were greatly opposed to the total dismantlement of USAID. Republicans have control of the Executive and both houses of Congress; why not reform the right way, when they have the power to do so, asked Democrats.

Despite its reliance on USAID, Ukraine was not a heavily touched-upon subject. It received only two mentions throughout the entire hearing. These mentions were by Representative Keating (D-MA) and Representative Costa (D-CA), who is a part of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus. In their arguments, they outlined some of the essential support USAID provides Ukraine. This includes programs and funding that train and equip Ukrainian energy providers to fix the electrical grid following Russian strikes. Keeping the power on has not only strategic, medical, and sanitation benefits but also is essential for morale and helps keep Ukraine in the fight against Putin. Additionally, USAID supports government efficiency programs and civil society groups, among other democracy promotion missions.

All three witnesses had direct experience with the work of USAID having either worked within USAID, as Andrew Natsios and Max Primorac had, or having interacted with and visited USAID’s programs as, Former Representative Ted Yoho had. The three witnesses all expressed dissatisfaction with USAID’s new “woke” endeavors when questioned. They agreed that such programs were corrupting the global reputation of USAID, compromising its bipartisan support, and hindering its ability to succeed in its missions. Yet, they differed on the extent to which USAID needed to be reformed as a result of these “wasteful” programs.

Andrew Natsios, a self-proclaimed conservative, lifelong Republican, and former Administrator of USAID, took the side that while such missions were a misstep, they only warranted reform saying that the representatives should “course correct, not course destroy”. He was always quick to point out that USAID career employees “do what they’re told” and follow the objectives laid out by the current administration. This reasoning allowed him to shift the blame of the “woke” programs off of USAID and onto the Biden administration, which he blamed for dragging it into a culture war. He stressed that ending USAID was celebrated by the U.S.’s enemies and makes the U.S. look unreliable, pushing more countries towards China and Russia. He also countered characterizations of USAID as an agency whose majority of efforts go to “woke” programs, saying that such characterizations were unfair and untrue in the past and continue to be untrue. During his responses, he also acknowledged the existing waiver program but criticized its inability to truly solve the issue of frozen funding as USAID’s funding disbursement system, Phoenix, remained locked and no money was being sent to organizations, despite what the administration claimed.

Former Representative Ted Yoho (R-FL) took the middle ground, reasoning that more intense reform and oversight were necessary. He stressed that oversight on its own isn’t enough; Congress needs to check back in on oversight, ensuring the recommendations and changes are being implemented. From his perspective, the role of USAID focused more on providing aid to countries as a temporary measure, helping them “move from aid to trade”. In his opinion, the immediate cessation of USAID operations was not desirable, as not being present is worse than mismanagement, he argued. The pausing of aid creates a vacuum, which will be filled by China, Russia, and the U.S.’s other adversaries. He was comfortable with reform because he felt that if a program was not supported by the administration, it should be ended, and that a small number of programs had ruined the overall legitimacy of an important agency.

Lastly Max Primorac, a Former Acting Chief Operating Officer at USAID and a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, found that the “radical-left” missions of USAID had poisoned the agency so profoundly that its dissolution was the only option. This control of foreign aid by the left was a trend that extended beyond USAID. During his answers, he would reiterate that aid needed to align with American interests, but presently it would often instead go to terrorists and other organizations that actively work against the U.S. Additionally, he believed the U.S. shouldn’t put conditions on aid, that these conditions push countries away from working with the U.S. He cited a conversation he had with African leaders where they told him that “The Chinese do not ask us to violate our religion to do business” in reference to pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ legislation the U.S. was requiring. Going forward, Mr. Primorac said that the world should decrease its reliance on the U.S. for support.

Despite the merits and experience of the witnesses, they had some limitations. None of them were current employees of USAID or the Trump administration and as a result, were unable to provide insight into some of the recent decision-making processes that occurred. This was especially an issue when discussing the presence of different programs, as the witnesses, particularly Andrew Natsios, would often only be able to answer that he had no recollection of such a program existing when he was present. Additionally, some of the programs that were blamed on USAID were actually programs initiated and funded by other departments and agencies, such as the State Department.

‍