Hide table of contents

Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise is 922 pages of US governing proposals from the Heritage Foundation, with ideas for multiple departments. From the recent executive orders it seems like parts of Project 2025 are already or in the process of being implemented.

They have a 30 page section on the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and I thought it would be useful to go through and see what the new US government may be attempting to do in the next few years. I’ve given a brief summary of most of the topics without much comment.

 

Key Issues

Aligning U.S. Foreign Aid to U.S. Foreign Policy

  • U.S. foreign aid currently suffers from fragmentation across approximately 20 different government offices, agencies, and departments, resulting in poor alignment with broader foreign policy strategy.
  • The proposed solution is to authorise the USAID Administrator to serve as Director of Foreign Assistance (at Deputy Secretary level within the State Department), enabling better coordination of aid programs and alignment with policy objectives.

Countering China’s Development Challenge

  • China's Belt and Road Initiative has deployed billions in loans and investments across Latin America and Africa, often creating "debt traps" that advance China's strategic interests while undermining local economies and U.S. influence.
  • The Trump administration established several counter-China programs through USAID (including "Clear Choice," Digital Strategy, and new bilateral partnerships), but these were largely discontinued under the Biden administration in favor of climate-focused policies.
  • The administration should restore USAID's counter-China programs and prioritise aid to countries that resist Chinese influence, while cutting funding to partners that engage with Chinese entities.

Climate Change

  • USAID was declared "a climate agency," redirecting its focus towards transitioning countries away from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
  • Argues that climate-focused policy has worsened global food insecurity and poverty by driving up energy prices and limiting access to natural gas-based fertilisers, Sri Lanka's fertiliser ban is an example of failed climate policies.
  • Recommends that USAID should abandon its anti-fossil fuel stance and instead support responsible management of oil and gas reserves, whilst limiting climate funding to strengthen the resilience of countries that are most vulnerable to climatic shifts.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Agenda

  • USAID's DEI infrastructure is criticised for racialising the agency, creating a hostile work environment, threatening merit-based advancement, politicising the workplace, corrupting the award process, and discouraging contractors who disagree.
  • Recommends that the administration should dismantle all DEI infrastructure.

Refocusing Gender Equality on Women, Children, and Families

  • Criticises USAID's gender policies for diluting focus on women, children and families by promoting progressive interests, including abortion rights.
  • Recommends renaming the Office of Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment to the Office of Women, Children and Families, appointing a pro-life coordinator and refocusing USAID's mission on providing basic human needs (including water, healthcare, and education) whilst implementing the Geneva Consensus Declaration and prioritising partnerships with faith-based organisations.

Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance

  • Under Biden's administration, the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy was reversed, whilst funding was restored to organisations that support abortion services, including the UN Population Fund and various NGOs.
  • Advocates for the administration to issue a broader executive order that would reinstate PLGHA and also close existing loopholes in all foreign assistance (including humanitarian aid), improving enforcement, and implementing stricter reporting requirements for all USAID-funded entities.

International Religious Freedom

  • Under Trump's previous administration, USAID prioritised religious freedom through Executive Order 13926, allocating $50 million yearly for related programmes and set up a Chief Adviser for International Religious Freedom who reported directly to the Administrator with the task of coordinating a “whole-of-USAID” approach to achieving this priority.
  • Suggests training all USAID staff on connections between religious freedom and development; integrate it into all of the agency’s programs, strengthen the missions’ relationships with local faith-based leaders; and build on local programs that are serving the poor.
  • Congress should appropriate funding to USAID specifically to support persecuted religious minorities in line with Executive Order 13926.

Streamlining Procurement and Localizing the Partner Base

  • Recommends appointing a political appointee as Senior Procurement Executive and restoring the Senior Official Accountability Review process. USAID's current procurement process is seen as favouring large, expensive contractors over more cost-effective local alternatives.
  • Highlights PEPFAR as a successful example of "localisation" which increased local entity funding from 25% to 70% (due for renewal in March 2025).
  • Suggests expanding the New Partnership Initiative across all bureaus, setting minimum percentages for local partner funding, and increasing open competition whilst eliminating cost-plus reimbursement contracts.

 

Global Health

  • Global Health Bureau measures success by money spent rather than outcomes achieved, while maintaining programming patterns from decades ago. Suggests that effective use of funds is essential to maximise care for the world’s neediest people.
  • The Bureau should identify and eliminate outdated and ineffective concepts and focus on funding innovation.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that countries with strong local health institutions responded better, supporting the argument for "localisation" - helping developing countries build their own healthcare capabilities rather than simply funding programmes "in" rather than "with" countries.
  • Suggests updating the Global Health Bureau’s portfolio, emphasising a comprehensive approach to supporting women, children, and families; building host-country institutional capacity and increasing awards to local and faith-based partners.
    • “The next leadership at USAID must focus attention on women and children’s health (including unborn children) as well as health risks across life spans, including childhood infections, cervical cancer, adolescent risks, and family stability, by utilizing a coordinated approach”.
    • “It is time for these programs to become part of an integrated, strong, and sustainable network of health care and public health in developing countries. A smooth transition to national ownership and funding, however, will require better coordination of USAID’s own stovepiped programs with PEPFAR and PMI.”
  • Implement updates to all of USAID’s global health programs systems for the collection and reporting of data to increase transparency and hold funded partners and overseas missions accountable.
  • “The Bureau’s Center for Innovation and Impact should be empowered to expand networks of private and faith-based health organizations that can develop projects using development-impact bonds, capital funds, and innovative technologies”.
  • “The Global Health Bureau should address its own management challenges by modifying the high ratio of contractors to direct hires, holding career leadership accountable for effective management, and building more flexibility in emergency responses”.

Holding Multilateral Organizations Accountable

  • Should designate a political appointee to help coordinate cross-agency efforts to hold the U.S. government’s multilateral partners to a higher level of financial and programmatic accountability (UN, WHO).

Global Humanitarian Assistance

  • Over 80% of the emergency budget now goes towards long-term man-made crises rather than natural disasters, with the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance's budget having doubled in recent years.
  • Argues that current practices are often counterproductive - they sustain war economies, create incentives for continued conflict, and allow corrupt regimes to redirect their budgets away from social services towards military spending and personal enrichment, as in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan.
  • International organisations managing aid distribution have high overhead costs - the World Food Programme charges 36% whilst Oxfam International's overhead has reached 70% in Yemen - yet continue to receive increased funding without providing evidence to justify their mounting budget requests.
  • Recommendations:
    • Make deep cuts to aid in regions controlled by malign actors.
    • Develop clear exit strategies with time limits.
    • Transition from large awards to U.N. agencies, global NGOs, and contractors to local, especially faith-based.

Leveraging Foreign Aid to Unleash the Power of America’s Private Sector

  • Recommends stronger alignment between USAID and DFC, suggesting a "dual hat" role for DFC's chief development officer, whilst advocating for DFC to return to its original purpose of providing commercial risk-reducing financial services rather than focusing on climate and diversity initiatives.

Branding

  • The Senior Advisor for Brand Management in the Bureau for Legislative and Public Affairs should be a political appointee who is responsible for maximizing the visibility of U.S. assistance by enforcing branding policy on every grant, cooperative agreement, and contract.

 

Regions

Asia

  • The Indo-Pacific region is critical in countering China's exploitation of developing nations, with USAID needing to align its foreign aid strategy with America's broader Indo-Pacific objectives.
  • USAID should strengthen partnerships with pro-market democratic allies (Japan, Australia, South Korea, India and Taiwan) to advance private-sector solutions for infrastructure, digital connectivity and economic development.
  • Despite China's significant state-backed financing in developing nations, particularly in vulnerable Pacific states, the collective private-sector capacity of democratic nations represents a more powerful economic tool, though current aid policies often fail to effectively advance U.S. interests, as exemplified by Pakistan's continued anti-American stance despite receiving $12 billion in aid since 2010.

Middle East

  • Increased regional vulnerability since 2020, with Tunisia moving towards autocracy, Iraq falling under Iranian influence, and U.S. foreign aid inadvertently supporting Iran-allied regimes.
  • Abraham Accords shifted focus from the Arab-Israeli conflict to countering Iran's influence, with USAID programming aligned to strengthen regional alliances through trade and investment partnerships. However, under Biden, USAID has reverted to an aid-dependency model.
  • Three key reforms:
    • Leveraging the Abraham Accords through joint investment initiatives with advanced economies like the UAE and Israel.
    • Reducing aid to Iran-allied states except for strategic priorities and religious minority support.
    • Restructuring USAID's regional operations to favour cost-effective local partners over international organisations.

Africa

  • Despite significant achievements in addressing health crises (particularly HIV-AIDS and malaria), efforts to reduce poverty have been largely unsuccessful due to partnerships with an aid industry that lacks clear exit strategies.
  • China has exploited Africa's continued poverty to become the continent's dominant force in trade, loans and investment, particularly controlling strategic minerals, while climate policies have hindered African development by restricting access to affordable energy.
  • Recommended reforms:
    • Promoting economic self-reliance.
    • Catalysing private-sector solutions.
    • Expanding programmes like Prosper Africa.
    • Extending the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act with conditions rewarding good governance.
  • Suggests following PEPFAR's successful model of increasing local entity funding from 20% to 70%, whilst reducing reliance on UN agencies and international NGOs.

Latin America

  • The region has seen a shift towards leftist governments hostile to American interests, whilst authoritarian regimes in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela continue to generate humanitarian crises and migration pressures on the U.S. southern border.
  • Latin America possesses significant advantages, including substantial energy and food resources, geographic proximity to the U.S., free-trade agreements, and strong diaspora connections, which could support development without aid dependency.
  • Recommends:
    • Focusing on free market fundamentals.
    • Supporting private sector partnerships and civil society groups.
    • Transitioning to local organisations by 2030 rather than relying on U.S.-based implementers.
Comments6


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Thanks David - really helpful to be able to read about this succinctly!

Thanks for providing this summary!

This is a great write-up, thank you for highlighting these developments!

One other section I'd point you to is on proposed regional priorities for sub-Saharan Africa (p219 of the linked PDF). The primary focus is on countering Chinese influence on the continent, followed by engagement on counter-terrorism. I would highlight two further points:

First, Project 2025 suggests shifting aid from "stand-alone humanitarian development aid" and towards growth-based programs. By "growth," they mean "fostering free market systems in African countries by incentivizing and facilitating U.S. private sector engagement in these countries" and not the same things as the Open Phil growth focus area. But worth keeping an eye on.

Second, the document specifically recommends "the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti." Somaliland is a de facto independent country, but not internationally recognized. It receives negligible amounts of Official Development Aid, as aid is directed to the official Somalian government in Mogadishu. "When There Was No Aid" by Sarah Phillips is an excellent account of how Somaliland and its economy has evolved outside of the universe of foreign aid; Ken Opalo makes an argument for approaching recognition (and aid) carefully. I have a lot more thoughts about Somaliland; recognition from the US would be a really big deal for the region.

Transition from large awards to U.N. agencies, global NGOs, and contractors to local, especially faith-based.

 

This is a very interesting take, would love to see how it would play out.

See here (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/FTTPCtkizkAQ9fkvM/unicode-wvyp) for the Rapid Response Fund: https://www.founderspledge.com/funds/rapid-response-fund. It's an opportunity to donate to help mitigate the worst immediate consequences of the aid freeze.

Will the new USAID continue to provide education opportunities for women's education

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LintzA
 ·  · 15m read
 · 
Cross-posted to Lesswrong Introduction Several developments over the past few months should cause you to re-evaluate what you are doing. These include: 1. Updates toward short timelines 2. The Trump presidency 3. The o1 (inference-time compute scaling) paradigm 4. Deepseek 5. Stargate/AI datacenter spending 6. Increased internal deployment 7. Absence of AI x-risk/safety considerations in mainstream AI discourse Taken together, these are enough to render many existing AI governance strategies obsolete (and probably some technical safety strategies too). There's a good chance we're entering crunch time and that should absolutely affect your theory of change and what you plan to work on. In this piece I try to give a quick summary of these developments and think through the broader implications these have for AI safety. At the end of the piece I give some quick initial thoughts on how these developments affect what safety-concerned folks should be prioritizing. These are early days and I expect many of my takes will shift, look forward to discussing in the comments!  Implications of recent developments Updates toward short timelines There’s general agreement that timelines are likely to be far shorter than most expected. Both Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have recently said they expect AGI within the next 3 years. Anecdotally, nearly everyone I know or have heard of who was expecting longer timelines has updated significantly toward short timelines (<5 years). E.g. Ajeya’s median estimate is that 99% of fully-remote jobs will be automatable in roughly 6-8 years, 5+ years earlier than her 2023 estimate. On a quick look, prediction markets seem to have shifted to short timelines (e.g. Metaculus[1] & Manifold appear to have roughly 2030 median timelines to AGI, though haven’t moved dramatically in recent months). We’ve consistently seen performance on benchmarks far exceed what most predicted. Most recently, Epoch was surprised to see OpenAI’s o3 model achi
Rory Fenton
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Cross-posted from my blog. Contrary to my carefully crafted brand as a weak nerd, I go to a local CrossFit gym a few times a week. Every year, the gym raises funds for a scholarship for teens from lower-income families to attend their summer camp program. I don’t know how many Crossfit-interested low-income teens there are in my small town, but I’ll guess there are perhaps 2 of them who would benefit from the scholarship. After all, CrossFit is pretty niche, and the town is small. Helping youngsters get swole in the Pacific Northwest is not exactly as cost-effective as preventing malaria in Malawi. But I notice I feel drawn to supporting the scholarship anyway. Every time it pops in my head I think, “My money could fully solve this problem”. The camp only costs a few hundred dollars per kid and if there are just 2 kids who need support, I could give $500 and there would no longer be teenagers in my town who want to go to a CrossFit summer camp but can’t. Thanks to me, the hero, this problem would be entirely solved. 100%. That is not how most nonprofit work feels to me. You are only ever making small dents in important problems I want to work on big problems. Global poverty. Malaria. Everyone not suddenly dying. But if I’m honest, what I really want is to solve those problems. Me, personally, solve them. This is a continued source of frustration and sadness because I absolutely cannot solve those problems. Consider what else my $500 CrossFit scholarship might do: * I want to save lives, and USAID suddenly stops giving $7 billion a year to PEPFAR. So I give $500 to the Rapid Response Fund. My donation solves 0.000001% of the problem and I feel like I have failed. * I want to solve climate change, and getting to net zero will require stopping or removing emissions of 1,500 billion tons of carbon dioxide. I give $500 to a policy nonprofit that reduces emissions, in expectation, by 50 tons. My donation solves 0.000000003% of the problem and I feel like I have f
Recent opportunities in Global health & development
20
Eva
· · 1m read