Which agencies will Trump eliminate?
I assess a low probability that USAID will be fully eliminated during Trump's term; I put the independent chance at 15% based on statutory, political, and institutional constraints even while recognizing paths that could severely weaken or absorb the agency.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore market prices):**
USAID is a statutory agency created by Congress (Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) with a long record of bipartisan support across foreign policy, public health, and humanitarian communities. Eliminating USAID outright requires either Congressional legislation repealing or radically restructuring its statutory basis or a de facto administrative dismantling that replaces core functions in practice. Historically, presidents seeking to downsize or reorganize agencies have faced strong institutional friction: Congressional committees jealously guard jurisdiction, relevant appropriations powers sit with Congress, and national security and development stakeholders (DoD, State, health NGOs, multilateral partners) push back against abrupt elimination of civilian aid capacity. Trump-era precedent includes proposals to cut or merge foreign assistance functions, but no prior successful statutory elimination of a major agency without Congress.
Arguments that push the tail risk upward include: a president committed to aggressive downsizing can attempt to starve an agency via appropriations riders, reorganize its functions under other departments (notably State), replace leadership and staffing, and narrow its mandate. If the White House controls a cooperative Congress and is willing to attach repeal language to must-pass spending bills, statutory elimination becomes feasible. Also, political definitions matter: some actors may treat major de facto absorption or the end of substantive programming as 'elimination' even if a legal entity nominally remains.
Balancing these facts, the most plausible outcome is that USAID will be retained as an agency but face significant restructuring, budget cuts, or absorption of some programs into State or other bodies. An outright formal statutory elimination before 2029 is possible but unlikely given the need for sustained Congressional cooperation and the political costs. I therefore assign a 15% independent probability to the simple yes/no question "Will USAID be eliminated?" (Yes = entirely eliminated as a functioning statutory agency) by 2029-01-20.
**Stage 2 — Market calibration (after looking at prices):**
The market currently prices Yes at 39% (No 61%). My independent probability (15%) is materially lower than the market-implied probability. Possible reasons the market is richer on Yes:
- Conflation of outcomes: traders may be treating heavy de-funding, functional absorption, or effective neutering as "elimination," inflating Yes odds even though statutory elimination is much harder. - Political risk premium: traders may overweight the probability that a cooperative Republican Congress and an administration willing to use budget riders and reorganization would push through an elimination or effective replacement. If market participants expect a strong party-line repeal push, they may price it higher. - Recent headlines and commentary around downsizing and agency mergers can create momentum and belief in administrative solutions (EOs, interagency transfers) that appear quicker than statutory repeal. - Information asymmetry and noise: large event volume suggests active betting; narrative-driven trades can push price away from fundamentals.
Given the legal/statutory constraints and broad institutional resistance, I view the market as overstating the chance of complete statutory elimination. That said, the market may be correctly pricing a higher chance of severe functional collapse or a de facto absorption of many USAID responsibilities — outcomes that materially change the agency's role even if the legal entity survives. If your definition of "eliminated" is broad (including de facto functional termination), the market price is more defensible; if it means formal statutory abolition, the market is likely mispriced and presents an edge for the No side.
Recommendation (implication of calibration): - If you believe "eliminated" requires statutory repeal, I judge Yes is overpriced at 39% and No is undervalued. If you believe "eliminated" includes de facto absorption/defunding, market pricing is closer to reasonable.
Arguments
For
- President has historically signaled a desire to shrink federal agencies and has previously pursued aggressive reorganizations and budget cuts, creating a credible intent to target agencies perceived as non-essential.
- If the White House and a cooperating Congress coordinate, statutory elimination or transfer of functions could be legislated, particularly if tied to broader spending or reorganization bills.
- Administrative levers (appointment of loyal leadership, hiring freezes, appropriation riders, and program transfers to State or other entities) can effectively neutralize USAID’s operations without immediate formal repeal.
- Political narratives arguing civilian foreign assistance is inefficient or redundant with State/Defense could facilitate public and Congressional support for major structural change.
Against
- USAID is a statutory agency with deep bipartisan institutional support for many of its core functions (health, humanitarian relief, development), making outright elimination politically costly and legally complex.
- Congress holds appropriations and legislative authority; eliminating a statutory agency typically requires sustained legislative action which is difficult even with a friendly President.
- Key stakeholders (State Department, Pentagon, NGOs, international partners) rely on USAID capabilities and would mobilize to defend or preserve those functions, raising reputational and foreign policy costs.
- Past administrations have proposed cuts or reorganizations but have generally preserved the agency in some form; precedent favors restructuring over wholesale abolition.
Key drivers
- Congressional control and willingness to pass repeal or defunding language
- Administration strategy: statutory repeal vs. de facto absorption via budgets/EOs
- Institutional resistance from State, DoD, NGOs, and international partners
- Public and geopolitical events (major humanitarian crises increase demand for USAID capabilities)
Risk factors
- A cooperative Republican Congress that prioritizes agency reorganization and ties repeal language to must-pass spending bills
- An administration that commits to an aggressive, sustained campaign of defunding and leadership replacement, forcing functional collapse
- Large external shocks (e.g., budget crises, scandals, or major geo-political realignments) that change priorities and create legislative windows
- Ambiguity in market participants' definitions of 'eliminated' (statutory vs. functional) leading to mispricing
Scenarios
Best case
Full legal repeal and transfer of USAID's statutory authorities to other departments (e.g., a merged civilian assistance directorate within State) enacted by Congress and signed by the President, resulting in the name and independent agency disappearing from statute and budget by 2028. This requires strong partisan control, strategic legislative packaging, and minimal defections.
Most likely
Significant restructuring and budget pressure: USAID survives as a statutory agency but with reduced budget, narrower mandate, and partial transfers of programs to State or other entities. The agency remains legally intact but operates at a diminished capacity and under tighter White House control.
Worst case
USAID is left in place but starved of resources and talent: sustained appropriations cuts, dismantled programs, mass resignations, and an inability to deliver major programs, effectively ending its operational relevance even if the legal entity remains. This creates humanitarian gaps and long-term reputational damage.
More from this day
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will be Trump's next Secretary of Labor?
AI96%MKT53%Edge+43Hidden GemKeith Sonderling is overwhelmingly likely to be the correct answer — he assumed the office on April 20, 2026 and is effectively the Department of Labor Secretary; I assign ~96% probability that he is Trump's next Secretary of Labor as defined by this market.
- SportsKalshi1y
Chicago Pro Football Team: Relocation
AI25%MKT64%Edge-39HypedI assess a 25% chance the Chicago pro football team will have relocated to a new Illinois location by the first game of the 2028 regular season — more likely they will remain at Soldier Field or have no finalized relocation by then.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will Trump pardon?
AI8%MKT46%Edge-38HypedIndependent assessment: very unlikely — I estimate an 8% chance Barron Trump receives a presidential pardon before Jan 21, 2029, because there is no present legal basis and the political cost of pardoning a child is extremely high, though not impossible if circumstances change.