'We have to try lifting ourselves': USAID workers fired months ago are still scrambling for jobs
They were among the first of the federal employees to lose their jobs, and months later, laid off workers for the U.S. Agency for International Development are still struggling to regain their footing.
Wayan Vota, who spent decades improving technology across developing countries, created a Substack site to help his former colleagues search for new jobs. But he doesn't have one himself.
Sara Gopalan, who worked as a USAID contractor for 20 years, surveyed nearly 100 other humanitarian aid workers who, like her, are currently searching for new employment.
Roughly 95% said they had lost savings and retirement funds, 60% lost access to health care, and 37% have already lost their housing. Many said they will have trouble paying their bills in the coming months.
"The job market is now flooded with these highly-skilled professionals, many of whom have dedicated 10, 20, 30, or even 40 years to international development work," said Gopalan, of Silver Spring, Maryland, who has applied for more than a dozen jobs. "The burden of pivoting after, say 30 years, feels insurmountable and weighs heavily on their heart."
The former aid workers also reported experiencing anxiety, depression, grief, stress, and even shame. It wasn't just the loss of a job, Gopalan said, it was the destruction of their career and their life's passion.
Those feelings resonate with Lindsay Alemi, a contracted worker who lost her job in March.
"I worked through three administrations and worked through all of the ebbs and flows, as we helped some of the poorest regions in the world," said Alemi, 39, who also lives in Silver Spring.
"To have done everything as a good Samaritan your whole life and then to see people call USAID a scam and a fraud, is gut-wrenching," said Alemi, who has done humanitarian work since she was in college. "This is more than just a job for us, this is a calling."
Billionaire and top Trump adviser Elon Musk called USAID a "criminal organization" earlier this year, without providing evidence, saying it was "time for it to die."
The aid organization was the first target in the massive cuts that Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has made across the federal government in what he calls an attack on wasteful spending.
Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates slammed Musk and the administration for the USAID cutbacks, saying they would lead to the death of millions of children around the world. 'The picture of the world's richest man killing the world's poorest children is not a pretty one,' Gates said in an early May interview with the Financial Times.
And though Americans like to complain about how many of their tax dollars support the rest of the world, nearly 9 in 10 Americans (86%) overestimate how much of the federal budget goes to international aid, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll released in March.
USAID comprises less than 1% of the U.S. federal budget, roughly $40 billion a year. About $1 for every $167 the government allocates is used for foreign aid. For decades, USAID has had bipartisan support in Congress because it built good-will for the United States abroad, helped combat infectious diseases that might spread here, and prevented local problems from becoming global ones.
The KFF poll found that two-thirds of Americans agree with Gates that eliminating USAID will lead to more illness and death globally, but almost half (47%) believe that dissolving it will reduce the deficit and help fund domestic programs.
Of those surveyed, believe the U.S. spends too much on foreign aid, but when they were informed that foreign aid accounts for a tiny percentage of spending, that percentage dropped to 50% among Republicans, 39% among independents and just 15% of Democrats.
"We live in the largest country that is willing and wants to support others; there's a moral obligation to lift those less fortunate," Vota said. "Now, we have to try lifting ourselves."
Vota had been working as a senior digital management adviser, in a role primarily funded by USAID. For two decades, he'd worked to improve technology across Africa and Asia, including in Nigeria, Ghana, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, and Indonesia.
Now 52, Vota told USA TODAY he was recently passed over for a private sector tech job because, despite his time in "crazy" cities like Jakarta, he was told they doubted he could keep up with the pace.
Another hiring manager near his Chapel Hill, North Carolina home worried Vota wouldn't be a good salesman, though Vota let him know: "I have convinced adult men in Tanzania to go for voluntary medical circumcision, and I increased our rate of circumcision by 50% …If I can convince grown men to get circumcised, I think I can sell plumbing supplies in North Carolina."
He didn't get the job.
The Substack site Vota created the day after he was laid off, called Career Pivot, helps his former USAID colleagues update their resumes and actively search for new jobs.
The free site features job listings as well as mental health resources, discussion boards, and networking events. A major emphasis of Career Pivot is helping former federal employees and contractors translate their skills into terms the private sector understands.
The site has more than 12,000 subscribers, he said, many of whom are mid-to-senior-level staffers who have spent the majority of their professional lives in the international development field.
"There are thousands ofhumanitarian workers with deep, rich, beautiful experiences who are self-motivated and dedicated, who are struggling to define their value to private sector employers who speak a completely different language," said Vota, comparing the site to a startup which now also helps former federal employees from other agencies.
Gopalan, 42, a married mother of three kids, is among those using Career Pivot. has spent more than 20 years working as a USAID contractor for five organizations monitoring, evaluating and creating policies for USAID-funded programming for developing countries, before being put on a DOGE-implemented administrative leave. Her job ends June 1.
On hold: US Supreme Court halts reinstatement of fired federal employees
Gopalan said, according to USAID Stop-Work, a coalition including current and former USAID-related employees and other supporters, nearly 177,000 jobs have been lost among governments and institutions involved in global assistance.
"Whether these are American federal workers or those who receive USAID funding, the dismantling has been done so chaotically, it has caused such irreparable damage, and is so unnecessary to do to public servants," Nidhi Bouri, USAID's former deputy assistant administrator for Global Health, told USA TODAY.
Many of the displaced humanitarian workers are suffering from "layoff trauma," said Dr. Anne Justus, an American Clinical Psychologist living and working in Cairo since 2007. The sudden loss of a job that is appreciated worldwide, but demeaned by many in their homeland, is devastating, Justus said.
"These people are certainly not doing it to be wealthy; they truly want to do global community building, and the ripple effect is widespread and enormous," said Justus, who recently gave a presentation to Vota's Career Pivot members. "They are not even sure about what they are going next."
Whatever jobs the former humanitarian workers may hold going forward, it might not compare to the impactful work they did, said Charles Kenny, a senior fellow for the Center for Global Development. He said those workers who were let go in similar shuttering agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Education, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example, are facing similar circumstances.
"These are smart, enterprising and driven people, and some will find jobs they like a lot less because it might mean doing a lot less good in the world," Kenny said. "I hope they will find them rewarding in whatever capacity."
'Will I have a job?': Federal workers full of uncertainty, fear over Trump, DOGE plans
As a project manager for a USAID-funded nonprofit, Alemi worked to prevent malnutrition and starvation in Zimbabwe and Madagascar. Her programs spent tens of millions of tax dollars buying crops grown in America ‒ which now may not have a buyer, harming Americans as well as Africans, she said.
Diplomacy dismantled: USAID aimed for 'soft power' but ended up in DOGE's crosshairs. Here's how.
Alemi has applied for about 30 jobs, but other than a few rejections, she's heard nothing. The mother of four said she's getting worried she might lose the home she and her partner bought in 2021 with a 3% mortgage interest rate, less than half the national average.
"No good news yet," Alemi said. "There's nowhere to go for everybody in our sector, so you may have to be open to making an entire career change."
Still, Alemi, Gopalan and Vota say they remain optimistic.
"My dream is that I hope I can get a job by the end of summer," Vota said. "I don't know if that will happen. "
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: DOGE cuts: USAID workers fired months ago still scrambling for jobs
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
8 minutes ago
- UPI
Senators propose $15-per-hour federal minimum wage
A proposed federal act would raise the federal minimum wage law to $15 an hour on January 1, two U.S. senators announced on Tuesday. The Service Employee International Union was fighting for that wage in 2021 (pictured). File Photo by Tasos Katopodis/UPI | License Photo June 10 (UPI) -- The federal minimum wage would rise to $15 per hour, with annual cost-of-living increases based on inflation, in a proposed bipartisan measure. Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Peter Welch, D-Vt., co-sponsored the bill that they have named the "Higher Wages for American Workers Act" and would increase the federal minimum wage from its current $7.25 per hour for non-exempt workers. "For decades, working Americans have seen their wages flatline," Hawley said on Tuesday in a joint press release with Welch. "One major culprit of this is the failure of the federal minimum wage to keep up with the economic reality facing hardworking Americans every day," Hawley added. Welch said inflation and rising costs are making it too hard for families to afford basic necessities. "We're in the midst of a severe affordability crisis, with families in red and blue states alike struggling to afford necessities like housing and groceries," Welch said. "A stagnant federal minimum wage only adds fuel to the fire," he continued. "Every hardworking American deserves a living wage that helps put a roof over their head and food on the table -- $7.25 an hour doesn't even come close." "Times have changed, and working families deserve a wage that reflects today's financial reality," Welch added. Hawley said the current federal minimum wage is less than what a worker earned in 1940 when adjusted for inflation. If the proposed federal minimum wage increase is passed into law, it would take effect on Jan. 1 and allow cost-of-living increases that match inflation in subsequent years. Many states have respective minimum wage laws that exceed the current and proposed federal minimum wage, but a dozen still were at the federal minimum wage in 2024. Many large employers also have higher minimum wages, including Walmart, which has paid its workers at least $14 an hour and often more since 2023. President Joe Biden in 2021 ordered the federal government to pay contract workers at least $15 an hour. California lawmakers in 2022 raised the state's minimum wage for many fast-food workers to up to $22 an hour.


Miami Herald
9 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll
During his public falling out with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk slammed the president's proposed spending bill — dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — claiming it will balloon the deficit. It turns out, most Americans agree with his critique, new polling reveals. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked to react to a statement from Musk on the GOP-backed spending bill, which passed in the House without a single Democratic vote. The legislation, Musk wrote on X on June 3, 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion and burden (American) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' A majority of respondents, 56%, said they agreed with this statement, while just 17% said they disagreed. More than one-quarter, 27%, said they were unsure. The answers were largely linked to partisan affiliation, with Democrats largely siding with Musk for a change. Seventy-two percent of Democrats said they concurred with the billionaire's statement about the spending bill, as did 55% of independents. Among Republicans, a plurality, 44%, said they agreed. The poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6-9 — posed the same statement before the other half of respondents, but this time, it did not attribute it to Musk. Without reference to Musk, a slightly smaller share, 49%, said they agreed with the statement, while 23% said they disagreed. Smaller shares of Republicans, independents and Democrats agreed, though Democrats saw the largest decrease in support — from 72% to 60%. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' The spending bill, which provides funding for fiscal year 2025, passed in the House in a 215-214 vote in late May and is now under consideration in the Senate. It contains many pieces of Trump's agenda, including a road map to extend the 2017 tax cuts, as well as an increase in funding for the Pentagon and border security, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. At the same time, it slashes funding for social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Further — to Musk's point — it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency. In addition to Musk, the bill has received criticism from several other prominent conservatives in Congress. One of the most vocal opponents has been Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wrote on X that 'the spending proposed in this bill is unsustainable, we cannot continue spending at these levels if we want to truly tackle our debt.' Other Republican lawmakers have come out in defense of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has said the legislation will deliver 'historic tax relief, ensure our border stays secure, strengthen our military, and produce historic savings.' Meanwhile, Democrats have been united in their opposition. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the bill 'the GOP Tax Scam' and said it would rip 'healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the well-off and the well-connected.'

Washington Post
9 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.