Expert Panelists’ Responses & Recommendations – USAID Congressional Hearing (Feb. 13, 2025)
A Digital Navigator & Peacekeeper Insights Report
An analytic presentation of the key insights presented to the U.S. Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee by three key subject matter experts on USAID operations.
I put this report together as a working blueprint for Friday’s (2/14/25) members’ meeting with the Alliance for Peacebuilding, where we’ll break down what to expect from USAID’s evolving status. Beyond that, it’s a strategic guide for me as I craft frameworks for stakeholders and communities engaged in ARAC’s peacebuilding and advocacy efforts.
My goal? Cut through the political theatrics and the usual influence tactics that turn these hearings into performative spectacles. Instead of getting lost in the noise, I leveraged analytic tools to filter out the rhetorical garbage and focus on what actually matters: the real implications for USAID’s role in global stability. No matter what direction this agency takes, it remains a cornerstone of the U.S. Global Fragility Act (GFA), a policy framework that directly informs my approach to peace and conflict prevention research. This isn’t just about tracking bureaucratic reshuffling; it’s about ensuring that the work of peacebuilding continues, with or without the usual Washington dysfunction
Panelists Reviewed:
Congressman Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) – Former U.S. Representative and Foreign Affairs Committee member
Mr. Max Primorac – Former USAID Bureau Chief, Contributor to Project 2025. Currently Senior Research Fellow at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom for the Heritage Foundation
Mr. Andrew Natsios – Former USAID Administrator under George W. Bush, currently the Director of the Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs
1. Summary of Expert Panelist Responses
A. Dr. Ted Yoho (Former U.S. Representative & Foreign Affairs Expert)
Main Themes in Responses:
Strategic Refocusing of USAID – Advocates for shifting from aid to trade as a long-term solution.
National Security Focus – Emphasizes USAID’s role in countering China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
Reforming USAID Programs – Supports cutting inefficiencies but warns against entirely dismantling the agency.
Agricultural and Health Priorities – Believes USAID-funded research and food security programs benefit American farmers and should be preserved.
Disease Prevention as National Security – Highlights zoonotic diseases (H5N1, Ebola, etc.) as a global health threat requiring early intervention.
Key Quotes & Takeaways:
“We should be moving countries from aid dependency to economic partnerships through strategic investment.”
“If we don’t engage, China will—and they’re already stepping into voids left by the U.S.”
“There’s good and bad in USAID—let’s keep what works and get rid of the waste.”
“Disease outbreaks will impact U.S. security if we don’t monitor and contain them early.”
B. Max Primorac (Former USAID Bureau Chief, Project 2025 Contributor)
Main Themes in Responses:
Supports USAID Restructuring & Defunding Some Programs – Argues that many USAID initiatives have strayed from U.S. national interests.
Criticizes USAID’s “Woke” Agenda – Opposes gender identity, DEI, and climate initiatives as priorities for aid.
Focus on Strategic Rivalries – Believes USAID should primarily counter China & Russia’s growing influence.
Calls for Greater Transparency – Suggests publishing all aid grant recipients to allow public scrutiny.
Seeks to Reduce Bureaucratic Overreach – Argues too much USAID funding is lost in compliance and administration rather than real impact.
Key Quotes & Takeaways:
“USAID has become a tool for progressive ideological programs rather than a vehicle for U.S. national interests.”
“Transparency is key—American taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going.”
“China is outcompeting us in influence because we’re too focused on ideological concerns instead of strategic ones.”
“Too many of USAID’s programs fund consultants and administrative staff rather than delivering tangible aid.”
C. Andrew Natsios (Former USAID Administrator under George W. Bush)
Main Themes in Responses:
Critiques Both USAID Cuts and Bureaucratic Bloat – Supports strategic aid but acknowledges inefficiencies.
National Security & Diplomacy – Believes USAID is critical for U.S. global influence and soft power.
Wants Greater USAID Independence – Suggests removing USAID from direct White House and State Dept. control.
Advocates for Smarter Aid Deployment – Recommends prioritizing aid in geopolitically important regions.
Emphasizes Local Partnerships – Supports funding grassroots and faith-based organizations over large bureaucracies.
Key Quotes & Takeaways:
“USAID is our greatest diplomatic tool in the developing world—if we cut it too much, China and Russia will fill the vacuum.”
“I support reviewing wasteful spending, but eliminating democracy programs entirely is dangerous.”
“We need smarter, strategic missions, especially in chokepoint regions (Panama, Suez, Africa, etc.).”
“Many of our most valuable foreign allies once worked for USAID programs—this is long-term relationship-building.”
2. Analysis of Expert Recommendations
A. Overlapping Consensus Among Experts
B. Key Areas of Disagreement
C. Strengths & Weaknesses of Each Approach
3. Final Recommendations Based on Expert Testimony
A. Areas Where They All Agree:
USAID needs serious reform – Cut inefficiencies, reduce waste, and increase transparency.
Aid must prioritize U.S. national security interests – Focus on countering China’s expansion and reinforcing American soft power.
USAID should shift toward economic self-reliance for recipient nations – Move away from permanent aid dependency and toward trade-based development.
More transparency and oversight is required – Publish grant recipients, eliminate unnecessary administrative positions, and focus funding on tangible impact.
B. Best-Compromise Policy Recommendations
Institute stricter financial audits – Ensure funds are reaching people in need, not bureaucratic layers.
Prioritize aid for strategic allies (Panama, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) – Secure U.S. interests in geopolitically crucial regions.
Reduce social program funding – While some human rights programs are valuable, they should not overshadow economic development aid.
Increase private sector involvement in aid programs – Leverage U.S. businesses to create sustainable economic growth in aid-receiving nations.
Keep USAID independent from political swings – Avoid politicization from either party by structuring it for long-term stability.
Final Thought
The most balanced approach would be Yoho’s proposal—which retains essential USAID programs while cutting inefficient spending. However, Natsios’ emphasis on soft power is also crucial, particularly in strategic geopolitical areas. Meanwhile, Primorac’s transparency push is valid, but his extreme funding cuts could risk U.S. influence abroad.
Notable members of Congress who demonstrated good old common sense
Most Balanced Republican Perspective
🔹 Why?
Recognized the importance of USAID in national security and global stability while still acknowledging concerns about inefficiencies.
Advocated for a case-by-case review of programs rather than sweeping cuts.
Focused on practical implementation issues rather than ideological debates.
Highlighted collateral damage caused by the funding freeze, including harm to American farmers and aid workers.
🔹 Key Quotes & Balanced Insights:
"We can agree that auditing USAID is a good thing, but the real issue is implementation."
"We are hearing stories about people who rely on aid now losing their lives—this is not just about cutting budgets."
"While some programs may be wasteful, others are absolutely essential to U.S. influence abroad."
"Rather than cutting everything, we should have worked across the aisle to avoid collateral damage."
🔹 Final Assessment:
Did not blindly defend or attack USAID—instead, he focused on real-world consequences of policy decisions.
Acknowledged the complexity of foreign aid, rather than framing it as purely good or bad.
Proposed a practical, bipartisan solution: Allow Congress to shape the implementation of reforms rather than abruptly freezing all funding.
✅ Balanced Approach: Reform USAID without harming essential programs or damaging U.S. credibility.
🏛 Most Balanced Democratic Perspective:
Rep. Kim (California)
🔹 Why?
Criticized waste but emphasized strategic aid importance.
Recognized that foreign aid is a tool for U.S. security, not just humanitarianism.
Advocated for increased transparency in funding decisions.
Acknowledged valid conservative concerns over spending inefficiencies.
🔹 Key Quotes & Balanced Insights:
"Yes, USAID has inefficiencies, but it is also one of our strongest diplomatic tools."
"If we pull out, China and Russia will replace us—and that weakens our national security."
"We must ensure our aid aligns with American strategic interests, not just feel-good initiatives."
"Rather than blindly defending all programs, we should audit them and keep only the most effective ones."
🔹 Final Assessment:
Did not deny USAID inefficiencies—instead, proposed realistic oversight measures.
Avoided emotional appeals (e.g., “abandoning starving children” vs. “wasteful woke agenda”).
Advocated practical bipartisan solutions—auditing, transparency, and targeted reforms.
✅ Balanced Approach: Improve accountability, but don’t abandon aid where it benefits U.S. interests.
Commentary: For one to think clearly, you have to put emotions aside, stick to facts, maintain a neutral tone, and present ACTIONABLE ideas to explore instead of the emotive partisan ‘us against them’ approach, which turns these hearings into a pure propaganda reality show.
Source: U.S. Congressional Hearing Transcript recording of the proceedings. By Quanta Analytica | MNS Consulting
Prepared by M. Nuri Shakoor, SRMP-C, U.S. Global Fragility Act Coalition Advocate