New York Times Portrays Fired USAID Staff as Victims — Reaction Isn't What They Expected
This is just embarrassing...
This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit and was republished with permission.
Guest post by Margaret Flavin
In July 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that USAID would no longer send foreign assistance across the globe.
Rubio noted that USAID had, for decades, failed to ensure the programs it funded actually supported America’s interests.
“Beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War. Development objectives have rarely been met, instability has often worsened, and anti-American sentiment has only grown,” Rubio wrote in a blog post, according to Fox News.
“This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end. Under the Trump Administration, we will finally have a foreign funding mission in America that prioritizes our national interests. As of July 1st, USAID will officially cease to implement foreign assistance. Foreign assistance programs that align with administration policies—and which advance American interests—will be administered by the State Department, where they will be delivered with more accountability, strategy, and efficiency,” Rubio said.
During the summer of 2025, the DOGE team announced they had eliminated another $14.3 billion in bogus contracts, including international contracts tied to USAID.
Following the funding cuts, the agency went from roughly 10,000–16,000 direct employees (plus hundreds of thousands of contractors and local staff overseas) to under 300 remaining staff. Over 90–97% of USAID’s workforce was eliminated.
Elisabeth Bumiller and Eileen Sullivan wrote A Year After U.S.A.I.D.’s Death, Fired Workers Find Few Jobs and Much Loss for The New York Times, bemoaning the struggles of the laid-off workers, something thousands of Americans face each day without fawning coverage from the outlet.
The authors share the example of a USAID-funded senior VP,making $272,000, or roughly five times more than the median income of the average American worker.
Sheryl Cowan, 57, was making $272,000 a year as a senior vice president at a U.S.A.I.D.-funded nonprofit when she was let go at the end of March 2025. Last month she had an online interview for a $19-an-hour job managing a Penzeys Spices store near her home in Falls Church, Va.
The example, however, had the opposite effect of garnering sympathy.
Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) notes, “NYT frames this as if USAID employees had a quasi-property right to high-paying, taxpayer-funded jobs.”
“In reality, this tells a darker story—we spent half-a-century debt-financing a managerial class of Leftists whose only qualifications were ideological.”
An X user pointed out the hypocrisy of the NYT constantly screaming about “fighting privilege” in contrast to how the story is framed.
“$272k for a job at a non profit, paid for by the US taxpayer and she cannot find adequate employment elsewhere? What does that say about her?”
“It screams, ‘this woman was WAYYY overpaid for the skill set she had!’ Which is yet another perfect example for why USAID was shut down. I’m sorry, why are we supposed to feel bad for her? Average salary in the US is $63,000….
“I mean pick a lane, one minute the NYT is screaming about fighting privilege and then the next minute they are posting this, which is the very definition of privilege. This article is asinine.”
Another user asked, “So, she was wildly overpaid by my tax dollars, now she is competing in the real world with a limited skillset, and any of us care why?”
One user pointed out the obvious point the NYT article ignored, “Pro Tip: If your NGO has to close its doors when the government stops funneling taxpayer dollars to you, then you were NOT a ‘Non-governmental organization.'”
Copyright 2026 The Gateway Pundit
All I can say that if you had a $272k bullshit job, you should have been smart enough to know that it was too good to be true and prepare for the crash.
Then again, if the left was capable of self-reflection, they wouldn't be pushing all the social bs they push (trans, unchecked immigration, massive welfare fraud, etc.).