Section 2.6: Agency for International Development
“Under the Trump Administration, USAID focused on ending the need for foreign aid by placing countries onto a Journey to Self-Reliance. The Administration restructured the agency to reflect this strategic approach to development, streamlined procurement procedures to diversify its partner base, increased awards to cost-effective local (including faith-based) organizations, and improved internal governance. It instituted pro-life and family-friendly policies. It promoted international religious freedom as a pillar of the agency’s work and built up an unprecedented genocide-response infrastructure.”
This requires some nuance to fully explain. Visit the link below for full context and an unpacking of this statement.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“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.”
This is a grotesquely exaggerated and partisan interpretation of reality. Yes, the Biden administration rescinded the disastrous Mexico City Policy. (And it should be noted here that USAID still follows U.S. federal law, which prohibits using federal funds directly for abortions in most cases and has since 1973 – see the Helms Amendment.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“It [the Biden administration] has dispensed with decades of bipartisan consensus on foreign aid and pursued policies that contravene basic American values and have antagonized our partners in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It has decoupled U.S. assistance from free-market reforms that are the keystone of economic and political stability and has teamed with global institutions to impose central planning diktats on an unprecedented scale. Wasteful budget increases requested by the Administration and appropriated by Congress have outstripped USAID’s capacity to spend funds responsibly, and U.S. foreign aid has been transformed into a massive and open-ended global entitlement program captured by—and enriching—the progressive Left.”
This is more highly partisan/exaggerated framing. The Biden Administration has shifted foreign aid priorities, but whether it has “dispensed with bipartisan consensus” is debatable. U.S. foreign aid has traditionally focused on issues like democracy promotion, economic development, and humanitarian assistance. While the Biden Administration has emphasized climate change, gender equality, and racial justice more than previous administrations, these are not entirely new focuses. Critics argue that these shifts break from bipartisan norms, but much of the core of U.S. aid policy – such as disaster relief and development – remains consistent.
The phrase “basic American values” is vague and subjective. Supporters of Biden’s policies might argue that promoting climate action, gender equality, and inclusivity align perfectly with modern American values, particularly in addressing global challenges. Conservative critics may see these priorities as diverging from traditional foreign aid goals like economic development or anti-communism.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“The Biden Administration’s extreme climate policies have worsened global food insecurity and hunger. Its anti–fossil fuel agenda has led to a sharp spike in global energy prices. Inflation has hit the poor the hardest as they expend a higher proportion of income on food purchases. Farmers in poor countries can no longer afford to buy expensive natural gas–based fertilizers that are key to achieving high yields of food production. Under advice from climate radicals, the government of Sri Lanka even banned chemical fertilizers entirely without having any replacements in place. The result has been hunger and violent political instability.”
Primorac exaggerates so aggressively that if I were going to debunk every instance, this essay would be prohibitively long. Suffice it to say, almost none of this is true. There’s little direct evidence that the Biden Administration’s climate policies are responsible for worsening global food insecurity. Global food insecurity is driven by a complex set of factors, including climate change, conflict, supply chain disruptions (such as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic), and, most recently, the Russia-Ukraine war (which severely disrupted grain and fertilizer supplies).
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“Democrat Administrations have nearly erased what females are and what femininity is through “gender” policies and practices.”
I don’t know of any women who have been “erased”, nor do I know many women whose femininity is so fragile, that the inclusion of trans women in the idea of what womanhood can encompass, worries or threatens them in the least. I don’t think an overwhelming majority of women are interested in gatekeeping what it means to be a woman (although men have been historically obsessed with what it means to “be a man”, so I understand why Primorac might think this.) In fact, the idea that someone else merely existing might “erase” you or threaten your place in the world is no more than you victimizing yourself. Do you know what actually erases women? Policies that take away their rights and their voices, and put their lives in danger.
As a side note, referring to women as “females”, as Primorac does here, reduces them to their reproductive abilities. This language is not an accident. That’s all that Republicans think women are good for, as evidenced by their draconian abortion policies (which actually result in more abortions; see above.) They don’t see women as people, or they’d trust them make their own choices. See: Repulicans Claim to Love Both Mothers and Children. Their Policies Prove They Love Neither.
In any case, systematically reducing women to their reproductive capabilities makes it very easy for them to discriminate against trans women – if you can’t have babies, you are not part of the club. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance routinely dismisses childless women as bad and/or useless, and even once suggested that people with children should have more voting power.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“USAID now aggressively promotes abortion on demand under the guise of “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights,” “gender equality,” and “women’s empowerment” and advocates for those who claim minority status or vulnerability.”
This is a lie, the U.S. has never “aggressively promoted abortion on demand.” See detailed analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“In addition, the next conservative Administration should rescind President Biden’s 2022 Gender Policy and refocus it on Women, Children, and Families and revise the agency’s regulation on “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle.” It should remove all references, examples, definitions, photos, and language on USAID websites, in agency publications and policies, and in all agency contracts and grants that include the following terms: “gender,” “gender equality,” “gender equity,” “gender diverse individuals,” “gender aware,” “gender sensitive,” etc. It should also remove references to “abortion,” “reproductive health,” and “sexual and reproductive rights” and controversial sexual education materials.”
Apparently, he’s taking a page from Russ Vought’s book where he appears to believe that if you don’t say the words that talk about a thing, then that thing ceases to exist. I touch on that in Section 1.2, but suffice it to say, this is not a policy position grounded in reality. Moreover, the term “reproductive health” is radical to him? That’s not the position of a normal person. Henceforth, I will be referring to this phenomenon as the “Bruno Strategy,” because?
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“The Biden Administration restored abortion subsidies to pro-abortion NGOs including Planned Parenthood International and MSI Reproductive Choices.”
This is, if not an outright lie, deliberately misleading. The Biden Administration did restore funding to organizations like Planned Parenthood International and MSI Reproductive Choices, but these funds do not directly subsidize abortions due to existing U.S. laws (see analysis). Rather, they support broader reproductive health services, such as contraception and family planning, pre- and post-natal care, testing, treatment, and prevention of sexually transmitted infections, education on sexual and reproductive health, safe sex practices, gender-based violence prevention, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and more.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“The next conservative Administration must champion the core American value of religious freedom, which correlates significantly with poverty reduction, economic growth, and peace.”
This is oversimplified. Freedom of religion by itself does not directly correlate to poverty reduction. The link to economic growth is indirect and reliant on the idea that countries that respect individual freedoms tend to create more open and favorable environments for investment and trade. Religious freedom can foster a more stable and inclusive environment, which indirectly supports these goals, but it is not a singular or definitive cause. The Berkley Center at Georgetown studied this idea intensively, and did find positive correlations when the whole ecosystem is taken into account. Regardless, championing (truly neutral) freedom of religion is important.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.
“The continued high rate of maternal and infant mortality is a persistent global tragedy. Contrary to current publicity, this problem is not solved by abortion.”
Literally nobody is arguing that abortion “solves” maternal and infant mortality. This is, quite frankly, an insane statement. Fact: Maternal mortality in the U.S. far outstrips that of other industrialized nations (nearly three times that of France, which is the next highest.) [Source]
“The reasons for mortality are manifold. Most cases are due to inadequate medical care or obstetric care. Complications often occur as early as during pregnancy and the risk of death for mothers and their babies increases during the delivery due to a lack of professional help on site. A lack of education and poor nutrition also increase the risk of mortality.” [Source]
Additionally, the CDC found that more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. were preventable. I recognize that this feels like a digression from Primorac’s original statement, but I’m unclear on how to effectively counter outright insanity.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.6: Agency for International Development here.