For context: USAID (United States Agency for International Development) is a U.S. government agency responsible for administering foreign aid and development assistance. It focuses on promoting economic growth, reducing poverty, improving global health, supporting education, advancing democratic governance, and responding to humanitarian crises.

USAID operates in countries around the world, working to foster stability, prosperity, and development by addressing issues like hunger, disease, and lack of access to basic services, often in partnership with local governments and organizations. Its goal is to promote sustainable development and support U.S. foreign policy objectives through aid and assistance programs.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 286, paragraph 2.)

This requires some nuance to fully explain. The Trump Administration introduced the Journey to Self-Reliance framework, which aimed to shift USAID’s approach toward making countries more self-sufficient and less reliant on U.S. aid. There were efforts to streamline USAID’s operations, including procurement reforms aimed at diversifying the partner base and awarding more contracts to local and faith-based organizations. This was part of a broader goal to make USAID’s operations more efficient and to promote partnerships with smaller, local organizations rather than primarily large international NGOs.

The Trump Administration reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy¹, which bars U.S. federal funding to foreign organizations that perform or promote abortion. USAID was required to follow this policy, making it central to its foreign aid distribution. The promotion of international religious freedom became a greater priority under the Trump Administration, with USAID placing a stronger emphasis on religious rights as part of its development agenda. This aligned with broader administration efforts, particularly under Vice President Mike Pence, who championed religious freedom globally.

As for an “unprecedented” genocide response infrastructure, USAID, in partnership with other government entities, built on existing efforts to respond to genocide and mass atrocities. For example, the Atrocities Prevention Board and programs to assist persecuted minorities, especially in areas like Iraq and Syria where religious minorities were targeted by ISIS, were strengthened. While these initiatives were ramped up, they built on pre-existing efforts rather than actually creating something unprecedented.

So, there’s the context; let’s unpack some of that.

A study done by KFF² (formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation) dissected the results of the Mexico City Policy, also known as the “global gag rule.” The study found that the result of Trump administration reinstating the Mexico Policy was:

• Increased abortion rates
• Increased pregnancy
• Decreased contraceptive prevalence
• Disruption/gaps in family planning and other services
• Reduced service integration
• Over-implementation and chilling effect
• Confusion
• Loss of civil society/NGO coordination and partnerships
• Increased administrative burden

Basically, it resulted in the exact opposite of its stated goals. Additional tidbits:

“Kavakli and Rotondi (2022), using data from 134 countries between 1990-2015, found that, when in place, the policy was associated with higher maternal and child mortality and HIV incidence rates. In addition, their analysis of individual data in 30 countries found that women had less access to modern contraception and were more likely to report that their pregnancy was not desired. Finally, they used their findings to estimate that reinstatement of the policy by the Trump administration could result in 108,000 maternal and child deaths and 360,000 new HIV infections over a four year period.”

“Brooks et al. (2019), using data from 26 countries in sub-Saharan Africa between 1995-2014, found that when the policy was in place, abortion rates rose by 40%, use of modern contraceptives declined by 14%, and pregnancies increased by 12%.”

In other words, reducing access to contraceptives and family planning services, forcing pregnancy, and banning abortion does not result in less abortion. It results in FAR more abortion that is more likely to be unsafe for the mother because of the oppressive laws.

One analysis estimates that a 10% decline in contraceptive use³ would lead to a 20-90% increase in abortions. From the linked article:

“No matter your politics, cutting down on unsafe abortions is an important goal,” Miller said. “Frankly, because many abortions are performed under unsafe circumstances, our analysis likely underestimates the full consequences of the policy for women and their health.”

The Guttmacher Institute described the Trump administration’s “unprecedented and unjustified” expansion of the global gag rule as “part of a weaponization of U.S. foreign assistance to systematically target global sexual and reproductive health and rights programs.” [Source]⁴

In short, the results of Trump’s policies (and the ones Primorac is praising here) were disastrous. Regardless of one’s personal feelings about abortions, it makes zero logical sense to support policies that result in more of them. Simply put, bans don’t work.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 286, paragraph 3.)

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 Amendment⁵.)

The Biden Administration has placed a strong emphasis on climate change as a central aspect of its foreign policy and development goals. USAID has been directed to incorporate climate resilience, clean energy, and environmental sustainability into its programs. While critics might label this focus as “climate extremism,” the administration’s position is aligned with the global scientific consensus¹⁷ on the urgent need to address climate change.

The Biden Administration has prioritized gender equality, women’s empowerment, and LGBTQ+ rights in its foreign policy and development agenda. In terms of how that has affected USAID, it has expanded its focus on these issues, including efforts to promote gender equality and prevent gender-based violence. The characterization of these efforts as “gender radicalism” reflects a conservative viewpoint, but these Biden administration’s initiatives are also in line with broader international efforts to advance gender equity and LGBTQ+ rights. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions regarding why Republicans believe that promoting equality and preventing gender-based violence is “gender radicalism.”

The Biden Administration has addressed issues of systemic racism both domestically and internationally. USAID has incorporated a greater emphasis on equity, diversity, and inclusion in its programs, including addressing inequalities in global health, education, and economic opportunity.

So, Primorac’s framing here is highly subjective and seeks to portray addressing climate change, preventing gender violence, and promoting equal rights for women and minorities as a bad, negative thing, and the characterization of them as “divisive” or “extreme” is simply not based in objective fact.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 286, paragraph 3.)

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.

There’s limited evidence that Biden’s foreign aid policies have “antagonized” partners in Asia, Africa, or Latin America. In fact, the U.S. continues to engage closely with countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America through diplomacy and aid. While some leaders may resist policies related to gender or climate change, there hasn’t been widespread backlash or severing of alliances over these issues.

Regarding the “global diktats” statement, Primorac is referring to a collaboration with global institutions (such as the UN or WHO) as “central planning diktats,” but this framing is exaggerated at best. The U.S. works with global organizations on broad issues like climate change, health, and development, and this collaboration is often seen as necessary for tackling transnational problems.

The notion that USAID has become an “entitlement program for the Progressive Left” is patently ridiculous.

Primorac goes on to praise Trump’s “Clear Choice” policies regarding trade with China, so let’s examine the results of those.

In 2018, President Trump fired the first shots by imposing tariffs on various Chinese products. China retaliated, imposing tariffs on American products. The war kept escalating — with each side making their tariffs higher and more expansive. [Source]⁶

Then, in January 2020, Trump met with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He and they both signed the “Phase One” trade deal, which was intended to prevent the trade war from escalating any further.

Here’s the weird part: The Trump administration had included a highly unusual provision in the agreement that instructed China to buy an extra $200 billion in American goods. That is, not only did they have to return to buying as much stuff from the United States as they did before the trade war, they had to agree to an additional $200 billion in spending above and beyond that. As of 2022, China’s deadline to buy $200 billion in additional American goods has passed, and China has bought none of it.

So, China didn’t hold up their end of the bargain, but by the same token, Trump’s trade deal was completely unrealistic. (Plus, the punishingly high tariffs on each side remained (and still remain in effect. The agreement didn’t end them, it just prevented them from going higher.)) The average tariff on goods at the time (2022) was about 20% on each side.

For Biden’s part, his administration has been trying to make China live up to their end of the deal⁷.

Add up the fact that China didn’t live up to the deal plus the fact that the tariffs were passed to American consumers despite Trump’s claims to the contrary¹⁰, and it turns out that the loser of the trade war between the U.S. and China was the U.S. Other nations benefited, though:

“When China levied large tariffs on American soybean growers, for example, Brazil, Argentina, and other soybean exporters filled in the gap. When China levied large tariffs on imports of lobster from Maine, he says, Chinese consumers began purchasing more lobster from Canada. Some manufacturing commerce also likely left China and headed for neighboring countries, like Vietnam, Thailand, or Malaysia.”[Source]⁶

Despite Trump’s claim that “trade wars are good, and easy to win”⁸, he certainly managed to botch this deal. Part of the reason for that is that he famously doesn’t understand how tariffs work⁹, but people like Max Primorac should know better.

From linked article 10:

“Economists told us, however, that real-world examples of tariffs working as intended are rare, and consumers of the tariff-levying country are the primary victims of tariffs, by having to pay higher prices. The federal treasury does get paid when tariffs are levied. But Chinese exporters don’t make the payment. The importers do — usually U.S. companies.

“If the U.S. imposes a tariff on Chinese televisions, the duty is paid to U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the border by a U.S. broker representing a U.S. importer — say, Costco,” Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, wrote in September. “The Chinese government pays nothing.”

This means that when Costco has to pay more to import Chinese televisions, they’re going to jack up the price of Chinese televisions in their stores to cover that loss, meaning that you pay for it when you buy the goods.

Need more?

“Numerous studies have found that U.S. companies primarily paid for U.S. tariffs, with the cost estimated at nearly $46 billion. The tariffs forced American companies to accept lower profit margins, cut wages and jobs for U.S. workers, defer potential wage hikes or expansions, and raise prices for American consumers or companies. A spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau stated that “farmers have lost the vast majority of what was once a $24 billion market in China” as a result of Chinese retaliatory actions.” Source: The Brookings Institute¹¹

“A January 2021 study commissioned by the U.S.-China Business Council (USCBC) claims that former president Donald Trump’s trade policies cost the United States 245,000 jobs.” Source: The Carnegie Endowment¹²

“Although President Trump has persistently claimed that China is paying billions of dollars in tariffs imposed on Chinese imports to the United States, empirical evidence indicates that U.S. consumers are bearing the cost of the tariffs: $51 billion in increased prices and a net loss of $7.2 billion to the U.S. economy.” Source: William & Mary Business Law Review¹³

I cannot stress enough how awful the trade policies Primorac is praising in this section are, and they are Trump’s trade policies that he’s promising more of if he gets elected³⁴.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 289, paragraph 3.)

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 factors¹⁴, 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).

Energy prices have risen, but the Biden Administration’s policies are not the primary driver. The spike in global energy prices has been largely influenced by external factors like the Russia-Ukraine war, which led to disruptions in oil and gas supplies, particularly in Europe. While the Biden Administration has promoted a transition to renewable energy and sought to limit the expansion of fossil fuel extraction, these moves are part of long-term climate strategies and were not the major cause of the sharp, immediate increases in energy prices seen during his term.

Sri Lanka did indeed ban chemical fertilizers in 2021, aiming to transition to organic farming, but the policy was poorly planned and led to a significant decline in agricultural productivity, contributing to food shortages and economic instability. However, this policy decision was made by Sri Lankan leadership and was not directly connected to the Biden Administration or its policies. It’s inaccurate to suggest that the U.S. influenced this decision.

“The aid industry claims that climate change causes poverty, which is false.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 289, paragraph 4.)

No, this is not false. [Source], and¹⁵ [Another Source]¹⁶

At this point, we must conclude that Primorac is a climate change denier, and summarily dismiss anything he has to say on the subject, given that science overwhelmingly agrees that climate change is real, and caused by humans¹⁷.

Primorac goes on to argue for more use of fossil fuels, which are a dwindling resource¹⁸ that contributes to the climate change issue.¹⁹

Next, Primorac argues for dismantling all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies at USAID and describes the “LGBTQ+ agenda” as “bullying.” Wanting equal rights under the law and to be treated equally in the workplace is hardly “bullying”. It’s telling he would use this particular language. If one is used to being the oppressor, one typically sees equality as personally oppressive.

“Democrat Administrations have nearly erased what females are and what femininity is through “gender” policies and practices.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, pages 290 and 291.)

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.²⁰

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 useless²¹, and even once suggested that people with children should have more voting power. ²²

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 291, paragraph 1.)

This is a lie, the U.S. has never “aggressively promoted abortion on demand.” See detailed analysis above.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 291, paragraph 4.) 

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 1.2²³, 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?

He continues in the transphobic vein for a bit, then recommends re-implementing the Geneva Consensus Declaration on Women’s Health and Protection of the Family. I touch on why that’s a harmful idea in Section 2.3²⁴ when Kiron K. Skinner first suggests it.

“The Biden Administration restored abortion subsidies to pro-abortion NGOs including Planned Parenthood International and MSI Reproductive Choices.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 292, paragraph 4.)

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 above). 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.

Primorac then says that the Helms Amendment should continue to be applied; an admission that he knows that the United States does not, and has not, used taxpayer dollars or federal funding for abortion in over 50 years, and that he was being disingenuous at best implying otherwise, if not blatantly lying to try to support his points.

“The next conservative Administration must champion the core American value of religious freedom, which correlates significantly with poverty reduction, economic growth, and peace.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 294, paragraph 3.)

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 intensively²⁵, and did find positive correlations when the whole ecosystem is taken into account. Regardless, championing (truly neutral) freedom of religion is important.

“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.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 297, paragraph 1.)

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]²⁶

“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]²⁷

Additionally, the CDC found that more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths in the U.S. were preventable²⁸. I recognize that this feels like a digression from Primorac’s original statement, but I’m unclear on how to effectively counter outright insanity.

“Leadership should designate a political appointee to help coordinate cross-agency efforts to hold the U.S. government’s multilateral partners (U.N. and WHO agencies and other international organizations) to a higher level of financial and programmatic accountability, including assurances that language promoting abortion will be removed from U.N. documents, policy statements, and technical literature.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 298, paragraph 3.)

There’s the Bruno Strategy again! Primorac is arguing here that we need to force the WHO (World Health Organization) and the United Nations (UN) to adopt these ridiculous practices of not mentioning reproductive health matters, specifically abortion. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights²⁹, 60 countries over the past 30 years have expanded/relaxed their abortion laws. Only 4 nations have gone backwards and rolled back human rights: The United States of America, Nicaragua, El Savador, and Poland. 60% of women worldwide live where abortion is broadly legal (that’s 1.12 billion women of reproductive age.) That means 40%, or 753 million, live under restrictions. Only 6% of countries worldwide prohibit abortion for any reason. And again, abortion restrictions result in more abortions, for the most part:

“Notably, rates have diverged between countries with fewer restrictions and those with more: Between 1990–94 and 2015–19, the average abortion rate in countries with generally legal abortion (excluding China and India) declined by 43 percent. By contrast, in countries with severe restrictions on abortion, the average abortion rate increased by around 12 percent.” [Source]³⁰

I suspect that most of the rest of the world doesn’t want to regress in terms of human rights, and that this mandate is dead in the water (The WHO and the U.N. aren’t going to go along with it), but I worry that United States Leadership (assuming a conservative Presidency) will use their refusal as leverage to withdraw from the U.N. and discredit WHO. Withdrawal from the U.N. would lead to a power vacuum that China or Russia could fill, leading to a shift in global power dynamics. U.S. withdrawal would also mean less influence in international negotiations, peacekeeping missions, and the creation of international norms. (Sorry, Primorac. The overwhelming international consensus is that women deserve rights.)

The U.N. also facilitates international cooperation on trade, sanctions, and economic development. Withdrawing could result in economic isolation, especially if trade agreements and partnerships are weakened. The U.S. would lose its seat at the table for global health policy, limiting its ability to shape global responses to pandemics, public health crises, and emerging diseases. Discrediting the WHO could lead to misinformation or lack of coordination in addressing global health challenges. Without credible guidance from organizations like the WHO, future health crises could escalate more quickly.

Discrediting international institutions undermines global rules and norms that help prevent conflict and maintain order. This could embolden authoritarian regimes or non-state actors, leading to instability that threatens U.S. security interests. As a result of decreased funding and coordination, global crises—especially in the Global South—could worsen, leading to more poverty, displacement, and instability.

In short, a disaster. And not impossible or unprecedented – Trump withdrew from the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2018³¹ (Biden reversed that in 2021.) Ironically, Trump withdrew in “protest” of the body’s inclusion of countries with poor human rights records. Which is ironic, considering how far human rights slipped under Trump in the United States. This did not escape notice. From the linked article:

“This is just another symbolic way of saying, ‘The U.S. is back,’” said Richard Gowan, United Nations director at the International Crisis Group.

But Gowan said that U.S. membership could also have practical benefits, for example providing a venue to help collectively track violations by Afghanistan’s new Taliban government and potentially building international consensus on how to respond.

“There is some genuine leverage the U.S. acquires by being on the council,” he said.

Jamil Dakwar, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s human rights program, described the move as encouraging in as statement but said the United States also needed to address its own record.

“From ending mass incarceration to dismantling systemic racism to protecting immigrants’ rights, the Biden administration must take bold action to advance human rights and racial justice at home and abroad,” he said.”

The United States has a LOT of work to do before it can call itself a free country. Right now, we score an 83 on the world freedom index³². Although I doubt the scores work this way, that’s a B-. We’re behind 61 other countries in terms of freedom (Finland ranks best at 100, with almost total freedom. Tibet ranks worst at 0, with almost no freedom). Far from #1, we’re in the top 32%, at least (62nd out of 195 countries). That’s nothing to write home about.

“Transition from large awards to expensive, inefficient, and corrupt U.N. agencies, global NGOs, and contractors to local, especially faith-based, entities that are already operating on the ground.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 300, paragraph 6.)

Primorac is advocating here for pulling funding from U.N. Humanitarian missions and giving it to “local, faith-based organizations” on the ground (he cites misuse of funds as a reason). Because faith-based organizations never misuse money³³, and diverting large amounts of funding to organizations with no federal oversight wouldn’t be a terrible idea. /sarcasm

“Left-wing authoritarian kleptocracies in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela deny their people basic freedoms, violently and ruthlessly suppress any dissent, repress communities of faith, and generate such misery that hundreds of thousands of their citizens have attempted to cross our southern border over the past two years.” (Project 2025, Section 2.6: Agency for International Development, Max Primorac, page 309, paragraph 3.)

Excuse me, what? LEFT-wing? This is a BLISTERING lie, intended to inflame people who are primed to 1) believe anything Republicans say, no matter how ridiculous, and 2) automatically hate anything with the word “Left” in it.

Left-wing is a thing. Authoritarian kleptocracies are a thing. The idea of a “left-wing authoritarian kleptocracy” is paradoxical and impossible to reconcile with traditional left-wing ideology. The two concepts are fundamentally at odds. A true left-wing authoritarian kleptocracy is an oxymoron because kleptocracy and leftist ideals of equity and anti-corruption are fundamentally incompatible. While regimes can claim leftist origins or use leftist rhetoric, once they devolve into authoritarianism and kleptocracy, they have diverged from the principles that define left-wing governance. He’s describing fascism. And, given that he mentions Nicaragua – which is one of the only four countries INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES to go backwards in terms of human rights (see above), this shameful statement rates somewhere between “out to lunch” and “completely batshit.”

I started to suspect during the last section that the editors of Project 2025 were hoping most people would give up well before they hit the 250-page mark, and waited until after that to trot out the truly insane/liars. There has been a marked shift from merely twisting their version of the truth to their own ends, to outright lying and inflammatory rhetoric.