Last week, thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development employees walked out of the Ronald Reagan Building for the last time following staffing cuts by the Trump Administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.
Roughly two decades ago, New Jersey Democratic Senator Andy Kim, walked into the same building for the first time as a USAID intern—opening the doors to a career in public service that has seen him work at three federal agencies and in Congress. Today, as he watches federal workers and former colleagues grapple with a climate of fear and uncertainty, Kim is speaking out against the administration’s ongoing purge and on behalf of the government workforce.
Washingtonian recently sat down with Kim on Capitol Hill. Between votes, he shared his views on the importance of USAID, what advice he is giving his federal worker friends, and how he hopes inspiring a new generation of public servants–as opposed to demonizing existing ones—can ease hyper-partisanship.
The following has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Washingtonian: How did you end up working at USAID, and what was your role there?
Senator Andy Kim: Twenty-one years ago, I finished college, and the day after graduation I came over as an intern in the African Bureau. I was so excited. Showing up to the Ronald Reagan Building, walking past the column of the Berlin Wall that they have preserved, I was just really proud to be a part of that. I was able to then convert that into a paid job and continued on with the African Bureau. I got to travel to the continent of Africa for the very first time.
What is your most vivid memory of working at USAID?
The travel, and seeing how we can provide resources to be able to help. In particular, I was doing a lot on conflict management. I had traveled to South Africa, and [there were] a lot of questions about how do they continue on their trajectory in terms of democracy after so much upheaval for so long.
[Through USAID], I saw the role that we could play, and I saw how that increased our stature in those nations. They appreciated the work that we were doing in terms of providing them security. I later traveled around Africa on my own, and I got to see a lot of the work that we did on addressing malaria, which was saving lives. The help we provided gave us credibility.
USAID and our foreign assistance, it’s not charity. It helps our country. It helps us grow as leaders. That ultimately helps our security. It also helps grow our economy when we can build ties with businesses in these other nations, and be able to have access to their markets to sell American goods.
For people who are only hearing about USAID now because of the DOGE cuts to its workforce, how would you describe the agency’s mission, and what it does to advance America’s interests?
I always like to go back to the fact that USAID’s headquarters is the Ronald Reagan Building. Ronald Reagan was a strong supporter of this idea that our national security is based off of defense, diplomacy, and development—that we have different tools in our toolbox. You can’t use the military for every single [thing]. Diplomacy can only work in certain types of circumstances. Development helps us open doors.
For instance, there was a period of time when we were having difficult relations with Turkey. They had a major earthquake and we were able to provide disaster assistance. That actually helped repair our relationship with Turkey and helped us be able to engage. We also had challenges with Pakistan. When they had major flooding, we were able to provide disaster relief. It helped us navigate and strengthen our diplomatic ties, as well as offset some of our concerns when it comes to security.
Right now, we’re pulling out aid. Within days, China [is making] announcements saying that they’re going to take over some of the projects we’re doing in Nepal and in other countries, like de-mining in Cambodia. China is stepping in to embarrass and humiliate us, saying, “Look, you can’t count on America. America is not reliable.”
Global leadership isn’t just the strength of your military and how many aircraft carriers and battleships you have. It’s not just about how many embassies you have. It is about, are you reliable? If allies don’t think that we’re reliable and that when they need us we’ll respond, what’s the point?
And our adversaries, if they don’t think that they can take our word—and that we will step up and stand up against them when the time comes—they’re just going to feel emboldened to do even more damage.
The Trump administration recently sent emails to 1600 or so USAID employees, placing them on administrative leave with the intent of letting them go in April. What are you hearing from federal workers about Trump and Elon Musk’s treatment of the agency?
I know a lot of people still working at USAID, and they call me and text me when some of these developments happen. The first thing I’ll say is, these employees love serving the government. They love serving the country. Shame on the Trump administration for demonizing them. Elon Musk and others are using the guise of “efficiency” to make these targets—but if you look at what Elon is saying online, it’s not efficiency. They’re demonizing the sense of public service. Calling the USAID a “criminal organization,” accusing federal government employees of money laundering and other types of crimes—that is just so despicable.
I worked in four different departments and agencies. I know that there are efficiencies that we can build. We can make things more effective. There’s money we can save. There is waste we can get rid of—as in any organization, including the private sector. But to go after [USAID] in this way and just belittle the work that they do and to accuse them of crimes, it’s very demoralizing.
A lot of these employees want to keep fighting, and I applaud them. They believe in their work, and many are willing to withstand a lot of pain, personally and financially, to preserve and protect the fundamental mission of USAID. That has been inspiring to me, and has pushed me to dig in deeper.
That’s why, on the day that they announced the blockage of employees back into the Ronald Reagan building, I walked to the building, went into the lobby, and demanded to see the administrator and try to get answers on this. It was very powerful for me to walk through those same doors that I walked through 21 years ago—[but] this time, going through and seeing guards that were ordered to prevent the employees from actually getting in to do their work. That was so sad.
What stories and concerns have you been hearing from friends and old colleagues—either at USAID, the State Department, or the Pentagon—about what’s going on with cuts in the federal workforce, and what advice have you been giving them?
I’ve been hearing a lot from them just about how they can tell that this is a very intentional effort, not just in terms of the firings but how it’s being done—that this is intentional chaos. If you look at the words of Russel Vought, who is the new OMB director, he’s previously talked about wanting to “traumatize” the government employees. That’s exactly what they’re doing right now. They’re doing this in a way to try to inflict maximum trauma. They want people to feel anxiety. They want people to feel like, “Oh, you might lose your salary and you won’t be able to pay your mortgage or your rent.” They’re trying to instill that sense of fear.
I spent this weekend with a number of federal employees, because our kids are friends with each other. The parents are talking to me and just holding back tears, because they’ve got little kids. Elementary school kids. What are they going to do if they both lose their jobs? Some of them were couples that both are federal government employees, what are they going to do? They have a mortgage, it’s the middle of the school year, and it’s not like there’s a plethora of other jobs out there when so many people are losing their jobs simultaneously.
One couple talked about how maybe they would move abroad, where foreign assistance work is still being done by other nations—even though we’re abdicating it. Could they work for an NGO abroad and move out to Africa or elsewhere? The lengths to which they have to think through to be able to continue that work, it’s sad to hear that level of disrespect and the amount of fear. They deserve so much better.
Since Musk and DOGE began these attacks on the size and scope of the federal workforce, many employees have taken legal action. What actions are you taking in Congress?
When I was a federal worker, how I converted into civil service was through a program called the Presidential Management Fellows Program, the PMF program. This is how a lot of people are able to get into civil service and it’s one of our best tools in terms of pulling in top talent, especially young people coming out of graduate school.
There was an executive order that just got rid of the PMF program. I’m now in the process of drafting legislation to reinstate it. The President thinks he can just unilaterally end this—I’m going to try to codify it in federal law. It’s going to take some time.
There are other actions we’re trying to do in terms of oversight, trying to shine a light on these practices that are happening. That helps. For instance, there was a firing of workers at the Department of Energy that deal with the nuclear portfolio. Because of the amount of attention that was put on this, the [Trump administration] reversed those [firings] because they’re making us less safe. Very clearly, these are indiscriminate firings, because if they had put any forethought into it, they would have realized that maybe firing the people who are in charge of a lot of the nuclear capabilities of America is a bad thing.
You’ve spoken before about how your father was a scientist who has conducted a lot of research on cures for Alzheimer’s and cancer. What are your thoughts on the cuts to Alzheimer’s researchers at NIH, especially given your status as a member of the Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) committee?
I was on the commerce committee just now because there’s a nominee to head the office of science and technology, and we’re seeing these proposals for massive cuts to National Science Foundation funding and also NIH funding. The impact that that’s going to have on our global leadership, our ability to continue to innovate—it’s going to hurt our economy and it’s going to hurt our talent pipeline.
We already see schools, universities and colleges, research schools, saying that they’re pausing admissions for new students in STEM fields because they don’t know if they’re going to get the kind of funding to be able to continue on with some of the research that they want these graduates to be able to come in to do. That’s going to have an impact 10, 20 years down the road. We’re going to be missing a generation of scholars. It’s a huge setback.
Again, so much of it is about reliability. I saw this from my dad’s work. When a university or research institute is trying to make decisions on what projects to engage on, they’re thinking, “can we get funding, not just for this year, but for five, ten years down the road?” Right now, all that trust is shaken to the core. I don’t see how anyone feels like they can be guaranteed a long runway—which you need, because you cannot come up with a cure for cancer overnight. It takes a long time. And you can’t trust the private sector to do this, because they’re thinking about what’s going to make profitability. If you’re talking about something that might take 10, 20, 30 years, they’re very reticent to take on some of those projects.
What hope is there right now for federal workers? Where can they turn?
We’ve seen the courts be initially positive in a lot of their responses in terms of recognizing that federal workers have rights and they cannot be fired indiscriminately. We have circumstances where they’re being fired saying that it’s because of poor performance, but all their performance reviews have been exceptional. I ask all federal employees to make sure they’re printing out past performance reviews before they get locked out of systems. You have got to make sure you have hard copies.
What’s really important as well is to make sure the broader American public understands this. A lot of federal government employees, they’re reticent to speak out, for fear of being attacked personally. I feel it is important for me to speak up for them. So please: come talk to me. Come to my office. Share your stories. I’ll protect your identity. It helps me be able to tell the story of the impact that this is having. I think that story is so important to tell right now, because otherwise they’re hearing from Musk—who is saying federal workers are lazy, they don’t show up to work, they don’t care about it, they’re siphoning money, they’re in on the take. That is just blatantly, flagrantly wrong. It is blasphemous. We need to fight back.
Is there anything else the public should know?
After January 6th, people ask me, “Why are you continuing on in public service when you are seeing such degradation?” The way I answer that is, I am now going to dedicate the rest of my life to one singular question, which is: how do we heal this country? I don’t have all the answers, but I believe part of what needs to be done is igniting a new era of public servants.
Next year is the 250th anniversary of our nation, and I was hoping to use that as a means by which to try to ignite and inspire a new generation of public servants. To say, hey, look, we need to move away from the hyper-partisanship.
I learned a lot being a career public servant, serving under both a Republican president and a Democratic president. I served the country, not a party. We need a lot more of that. For Americans that are sick and tired of politics and partisanship—well, the civil service, public service, that’s the answer. It’s such a setback to have this president come in and be demonizing public servants. I believe we need a new “ask not what your country can do for you” kind of moment in this country. That’s what I’m going to fight for.
