Dismantling of USAID is a blow to Project 2025

More evidence that Musk's agenda is different from that of the religious right

Over the last several days I’ve been horrified to realize that the implementation of Project 2025 might have been better, safer, than the defiling many agencies have received from Elon Musk.

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly now has access to sensitive systems across several government agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Federal Aviation Administration, the Treasury Department, the General Services Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, the Small Business Administration, the Official of Personnel Management, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

How much power does he have? He has basically shut down one of those agencies: USAID. All USAID aid funding has been halted, and the vast majority of employees will be disbanded this week. The Department of Education might be next. (Project 2025 also calls for the elimination of the Department of Education.)

Project 2025 does not call for the complete dismantling of USAID. Project 2025, in fact, appears to greatly admire the agency:

USAID helps communities to lead their own development journeys by reducing the impact of conflict; preventing hunger and the spread of pandemic disease; and counteracting the drivers of violence, instability, transnational crime, and other threats. In alignment with U.S. national security interests, the agency promotes American prosperity through initiatives that expand markets for U.S. exports; encourage innovation; create a level playing field for U.S. businesses; and support more stable, resilient, and democratic societies that are less likely to act against American interests and more likely to respect family, life, and religious liberty.
[…]
At the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, it sought to halt the spread of Communism by assisting people in the developing world in their efforts to advance economically, socially, and politically. The agency helped to transition Central and Eastern Europe from socialism to free market-based democracies.”

The authors of Project 2025 clearly believe in the utility of “soft power” for growing and projecting international strength. The Mandate does lament that USAID’s spending and the bureaucracy have grown too large, calling out the “aid industrial complex” that they claim has developed in response to an agency that needs more oversight. But the Mandate does not suggest—or even hint at—doing away with the agency whole-cloth, as Musk has done. Instead, Project 2025 recommends returning to the first Trump Administration’s version of a smaller agency, with greater flexibility in spending and with so-called pro-life and family-friendly policies.

Project 2025 prescribes numerous functions for USAID to help meet Christian nationalist, Trumpist, and modern-day American conservative goals. It even dictates that the “USAID Administrator should be authorized to take on the additional role of Director of Foreign Assistance (DFA) with the rank of Deputy Secretary at the Department of State in charge of all U.S. foreign assistance.” That is, the Administrator should have additional power in the realm of foreign assistance, understanding the long-term close relationship between USAID and State.

Instead, USAID has been subsumed into the Department of State, with no leadership of its own, in what was probably an illegal maneuver. (USAID is an independent agency by law.) Marco Rubio, the recently confirmed Secretary of State, has taken on the additional role of Acting Administrator of whatever is left of USAID. It’s almost a complete inversion of what Project 2025 envisioned.

Project 2025 had some major plans for USAID, including using the agency to combat China’s Belt and Road Initiative (though which China has gained considerable influence in the developing world), supporting global oil and gas reserves, refocusing “gender equality” efforts on “women, children, and families”, promoting the pro-life agenda through humanitarian aid, and “advancing international religious freedom” by integrating religious missions with international development and explicitly increasing collaboration with faith-based organizations.

These may be controversial policies or contested priority shifts (what I thought I would be writing about in a letter about USAID), but they do not entail the type of major administrative structural changes that would the hamper the ability of USAID to function as the United States’ primary source of “soft power projection”. In fact, Project 2025 seems to be calling for more latitude in decision-making at the agency, even if the budget is decreased and programs are consolidated. This flexibility would have allowed politically appointed USAID leaders to set religious-inspired policy. Elon Musk is now deleting the tool of USAID from the Christian Nationalist evangelical toolbox.

Make no mistake—Project 2025 as imagined by the Christian Nationalist right is still alive and kicking. Its most shocking and provoking recommendations are being implemented across numerous government agencies. These are changes that could reshape our government in perpetuity. Nonetheless, it’s hard to imagine that there won’t eventually be some sort of internal showdown between the Christian nationalists, who have achieved so much power by aligning themselves with Trump, and Elon Musk, the rich kid interloper. I highly recommend this recent piece by historian Thomas Zimmer, which outlines the factions gunning for power in the Executive Branch.

Ultimately, Trump, as president, has the legal power of the Executive. He supposedly agrees with Musk’s takedown of USAID, although he’s also hinted at his displeasure at the attention Musk is getting. But is it possible that Musk may now be beyond control of both the elected Executive (Trump) and Congress? If I had to choose who would come out ahead, I’d choose the guy with more money than God.

To get really speculative:
Here’s a scary thought—if Elon Musk can control the digital assets of Executive agencies and has the proven power to shut down an entire government agency, will he use that leverage against the heads of those agencies? The heads of those agencies that may be “asked” to, say, invoke the 25th Amendment? Musk and J.D. Vance in many ways share a world view (e.g., in their laments of a declining birthrate) and of course are aligned through their close connections to Peter Thiel. They exhibit the youthful dynamism that Trump cannot have forever, and they have ideological goals and concrete agendas, which the transactional Trump largely lacks. A Musk-Vance partnership would be a perilous trajectory for each of them, but it’s becoming more possible each day.

Another Recommendation:
This NYT essay by Tyler McBrian of Lawfare, on state capture and how it can be combated. It emphasizes the critical importance of public awareness.