Congressman defends USAID staff but admits Democratic leverage limited

Republicans have Project 2025. Perhaps Democrats should create a Project 2029? That was a suggestion floated by U.S. Rep. Ami Bera, a Democrat from California, during a recent Devex Pro Briefing where he talked about the need to preserve the U.S. Agency for International Development in some form and make the case to the American people that USAID benefits everyone, not just abroad but at home. Project 2025 is the conservative playbook written by the Heritage Foundation to help then-candidate Donald Trump formulate policy ideas should he win the presidency. Now that he has, many of those policy ideas are coming to fruition, including the rapid-fire dismantling of USAID. Bera wondered if his party should have a similar playbook outlining why USAID is necessary and how it can be improved if a Democrat takes over the White House. “So on the first day of the next administration, they can go about where it makes sense to restore things, where it makes sense to modernize things. Because the reality is, unless we've totally withdrawn from the world, it's in our interest to be engaged in the world,” he said. “And maybe it is reestablishing USAID or something that looked like it. Maybe it's something slightly different, but we ought to start that conversation today — what is aid and development in the 21st century, and how do we do that in the most effective, efficient way?” As for this current administration, he has some harsh words about its treatment of USAID staff members, most of whom have been abruptly pulled from the job, with the Trump administration also terminating 90% of the agency’s awards, effectively killing it. He called it “disrespectful” how Trump is treating “patriots” — and how “dangerous it is because we need that talent. We all know it's not the easiest thing to do to recruit folks to come work for the federal government, and here you have folks that … many of them have served our country in uniform and chose to continue serving. … They should be ashamed.” That story of service could be weaved into an overall narrative to explain to the American public what USAID does — or did — and why it matters. That includes the national security argument, but more practically, it includes the blowback that Americans will feel in their own backyards. “Cutting all these global health programs, you're going to see outbreaks of diseases here in the United States,” said Bera, a trained medical doctor. “Those kids that go off on spring break are going to come home with malaria. … And that's why we do this, not just because it's the right thing to do. It's a smart thing to do as well.” However, Bera stressed that helping others is also the right thing to do, recalling the campaigns of the 1980s that woke the world up to famine, HIV/AIDS, and global poverty. “I don't ascribe to the Vice President JD Vance's view of the world that first you take care of yourself, then your family, then your country, and then if there's something left over, you take care of the rest of the world. I ascribe to Pope Francis’ view of the world, which is, no, we're actually all in this together,” he said. “I still fundamentally believe in the compassion and goodness of the American people. I just don't know that we've been articulating that to the middle America,” he said, suggesting a 21st-century awareness campaign of, for example, TikTok videos “showing the devastation around the world” because of the aid freeze, from people dying of HIV/AIDS to children starving in Africa. That’s especially important because misconceptions abound — Bera noted that many Americans think foreign assistance accounts for 25% of the U.S. budget, when in fact it’s less than 1% — and aid is a “soft target” politically because it lacks a voting constituency. But eventually, the Trump administration’s slash-and-burn approach to government will hit close to home, he predicts. “It's going to get real fairly quickly if they actually try to cut Medicaid, if they get rid of the Department of Education,” Bera said. “When Joe the plumber goes to try to make his appointment at the VA [Veterans Administration] and no one answers the phone, and there are no doctors, and he tries to drop his kid off at the Head Start program, and it's closed, or the auto workers’ boards lay off 25% of the workforce because there's a trade war going on with Canada — I mean, this is getting real, very fast, and that's where we have to be strategic.” “The public, for the most part, knows we're not in charge as Democrats,” he continued. “Republicans own it all, and their prices of eggs aren't coming down. Prices of groceries aren't coming down. Inflation, consumer confidence are going in the wrong direction. So that's when we have to pounce. That's when we also have to be ready to say, ‘Hey, here's what we would do.’” But some aid advocates are calling for Democrats to do more, right now. Bera admits “there’s not a ton” Democrats can do as the minority party in Congress. “I was home on Friday, and you know, folks were in my ear. It's like, look, I can handcuff myself to the Treasury Department, but it's not going to change what happens,” he said. Given the tight majority in the House, though, Bera said that if just a few Republicans jump ship to save aid programs that have traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, it would make a big difference. “But it's hard for them to stand up to the president right now,” he said. “I guess what I would say is, if we're not going to speak up, then why are we here?” But will Democrats speak up to use what leverage they do have in budget talks and force a government shutdown when federal spending runs out on March 14? “I do not want to see a government shutdown. I think it hurts the country. I think it continues to hurt what we do around the world, and it's not an effective way to run a country. That said, it sure looks like we're headed in that direction. Republicans are in charge here. We should negotiate a real budget. We should do a real appropriations process. I just don't see how that's going to work,” Bera said. “We'd like to pass a budget but we'd also like to have some assurances that if we pass this budget and we say, ‘Hey, we're going to fund this aid program in Africa,’ they're going to fund that aid program,” he added. “If the executive branch gets to pick and choose what they want to do, what does our budget actually mean? And again, this is uncharted territory. I don't know that we shut the government down over that, but I do sure think we ought to fight on that hill and see what happens.”