Which agencies will Trump eliminate?
I assess a 62% probability that USAID will be formally eliminated (statutorily shuttered or subsumed such that it ceases to exist as a congressionally created independent agency) during Trump's term by 2029-01-20. The administration's clear intent and de facto dismantling make formal elimination more likely than not, but congressional and political constraints leave substantial uncertainty.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Blind Analysis (ignore market prices):**
Based strictly on the factual record and plausible political trajectories, the balance of evidence favors eventual formal elimination of USAID during Trump’s term, though not overwhelmingly. Key facts: the administration has already executed an *operational* elimination (program terminations, staff firings, transfer of remaining functions to State), and senior officials openly sought statutory authority to close the agency. That demonstrates both intent and administrative momentum. In addition, once an agency’s substantive functions are moved into an existing agency (State), the political and bureaucratic friction to completing statutory elimination is materially reduced — Congress is being asked to ratify a fait accompli rather than to authorize an unprecedented, disruptive shutdown.
Countervailing facts reduce but do not negate the likelihood: USAID is a creature of statute, so formal elimination requires congressional action; Congress already blocked the request in 2026, showing there is organized resistance. The public and some lawmakers (including Republicans interested in national security and humanitarian credibility) retain incentives to preserve at least some institutional capacity for foreign assistance. Legal challenges over improper executive actions could complicate the administration’s path. The political calendar (2026 midterms, 2028 elections) creates multiple pivot points where majorities might change and political incentives shift.
Weighing those facts: the administration’s intent + de facto elimination + ease of ratification if Congress’s composition flips in Trump’s favor push probability up. The need for an affirmative statute, demonstrated congressional resistance to date, reputational/political backlash, and litigation risk push probability down. Combining those forces yields an independent probability of ~62% that the agency will be formally eliminated before 2029-01-20.
**Stage 2 — Market Calibration (compare to current prices and explain differences):**
Current market price: Yes 0.39 / No 0.61. My independent probability (0.62) is materially higher than the market's 0.39. Possible reasons the market is pricing a lower chance:
- Market participants may be conflating *effective* vs *formal* elimination and are interpreting the question narrowly (they may be demanding explicit statutory repeal rather than functional destruction). If many traders treat the outcome as already achieved (operational elimination), they may avoid re-pricing for a legal/formal act. - Traders may overweight the fact that Congress rejected the administration’s request in 2026 and view that as durable political resistance, underestimating midterm-induced shifts or the administration’s ability to create new statutory proposals that are politically more palatable (e.g., wedge amendments, rider language in must-pass bills, or full repeal in a later Congress). - Risk aversion and recency bias: the market may be anchoring to the 2026 congressional rejection and discounting the administration’s clear, sustained effort, plus the plausibility of legislative strategies to accomplish elimination later (e.g., attaching language to appropriations, reconciliation-like maneuvers if rules permit, or a Congress sympathetic to the President). - Legal uncertainty and potential litigation may make traders prefer the safer No side despite the practical elimination. Markets often underprice politically risky but feasible outcomes.
Conclusion of calibration: I view the market as likely underpricing the probability that the administration will secure formal elimination by 2029. If you accept that Congressional composition and legislative tactics are the critical path and that Trump-aligned majorities are plausible in the 2026/2027 timeframe, the case for a >50% chance is strong; hence my 62% estimate. If you believe Congressional rejection is durable and that political pushback will be effective, the market’s lower price is sensible. The divergence suggests a trading edge for those who believe congressional make-up and legislative tactics favor the administration before 2029.
Arguments
For
- Administration intent is explicit and long-standing: senior officials publicly sought statutory authority to close USAID, and they installed managers tasked with closeout, indicating high executive priority.
- De facto elimination already achieved: programs canceled, staff fired, and remaining functions transferred to State create a legislative and administrative path of least resistance for formal repeal.
- Legislative tactics available: elimination could be achieved via a direct statute if a sympathetic Congress is in place or via riders/appropriations vehicles that force acceptance in exchange for must-pass funding.
- Political alignment with an "America First" base means significant GOP lawmakers have incentive to approve cuts, reducing intra-coalition resistance if party discipline holds.
Against
- Statutory requirement is binding: because USAID was created by Congress, formal elimination requires congressional action — and Congress has already rejected the administration’s request once, demonstrating real resistance.
- Humanitarian and national security arguments carry bipartisan weight; lawmakers who prioritize global health, disaster response, and soft power may block formal dissolution even under a Republican majority.
- Reputational and diplomatic costs: allies and multilateral partners might increase pressure on Congress, and media/public outrage over documented human costs could sway borderline legislators.
- Legal obstacles and oversight: lawsuits about improper firings and misallocation of appropriations could complicate or delegitimize a hasty statutory repeal.
Key drivers
- Congressional composition after 2026 midterms (control of House and Senate and the strength of pro-Trump Republican coalitions).
- Administrative momentum: transfer of functions to State Department and de facto operational shutdown reduces practical costs of formal statutory repeal.
- Public and international political backlash (humanitarian concerns, bipartisan national security arguments) that could mobilize lawmakers to block elimination.
- Legislative route availability (standalone statute vs riders on must-pass bills, appropriations, or other vehicle) and procedural maneuvers Republican leadership might employ.
Risk factors
- Congressional resistance: even if Republicans control Congress, intraparty divisions or conservative vs. institutionalist splits could prevent passage of elimination language.
- Legal challenges to the administration’s pre-emptive operational actions could complicate or slow the political environment and make lawmakers wary of endorsing formal dissolution.
- Electoral volatility: a Democratic gain in 2026 or 2028 would make formal elimination unlikely and could prompt reconstruction of the agency.
- International and domestic humanitarian crises that spotlight the costs of dismantling USAID could shift public and legislative opinion against formal elimination.
Scenarios
Best case
For the 'Yes' outcome: Republicans win or significantly strengthen congressional majorities in the 2026 midterms (or pass enabling language via a legislative vehicle) and party leadership uses procedural tools to pass a repeal/termination statute. The law is signed and any litigation fails to stop the statutory dissolution, formalizing what is already the administrative reality by 2027–2028.
Most likely
A mixed outcome: USAID remains formally on the books but is hollowed out and functionally subordinated to State for most activities. The administration fails to obtain a clean statutory repeal but secures continued delegation of powers and funding reductions that keep the agency effectively dead. Congress engages in stopgap measures rather than full restoration, leaving the question of formal elimination unresolved by 2029.
Worst case
For the 'No' outcome: Congress (whether through a Democratic takeover in 2026 or a bipartisan coalition) continues to block statutory elimination, uses appropriations to restore or reconstitute USAID funding and structure, and federal courts rule against elements of the administration’s operational dismantling. By 2029 USAID exists as an entity again (perhaps smaller), marking the administration's attempt as a failure to achieve formal elimination.
More from this day
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will Trump pardon?
AI10%MKT46%Edge-36HypedI assess a low but non-zero chance (~10%) that Barron Trump will receive a presidential pardon before Jan 21, 2029 — legally possible (preemptive pardons exist) but politically unlikely given no current charges or investigations.
- HealthKalshi2y
What will the average number of measles cases be during Trump's term?
AI65%MKT30%Edge+35Hidden GemInterpreting the market question as whether the 2025–2028 average will exceed 1,500 measles cases/year, I assess a 65% chance that the four-year average will be >1,500 cases/year based on the already large 2026 total and persistent drivers lowering population immunity.
- PoliticsKalshi18y
Which G7 leader will leave next?
AI60%MKT92%Edge-32HypedI assess a moderately high chance that the UK Prime Minister (Keir Starmer) will be the first of the current G7 leaders to leave office, but not as extreme as the market; I assign 60% to the UK being first, with the remainder split among plausible early exits from France, the US, Italy and Germany.