Which agencies will Trump eliminate?

**Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore current market prices):**

Based solely on the timeline and documented actions, the evidence that USAID was functionally eliminated is strong and unequivocal. In mid‑2025 the administration terminated thousands of USAID programs, fired most of the staff, and moved remaining functions into the State Department. Congress refused to enact statutory abolition in 2026, but that refusal did not restore USAID's operational capacity. The Department of State, supported by the DOGE apparatus, has been winding down programs and absorbing functions; humanitarian programs were stopped, contracts terminated, and the agency no longer operates as an independent implementer. Historical patterns show that when an administration both (a) strips an agency of funding/staff and (b) transfers its duties into another executive department, outside observers and many institutional actors treat the original agency as effectively eliminated even if the statute remains on the books. Given the documented scale of program terminations, staff removals, and functional transfer, the probability that the event question — interpreted as "will USAID be eliminated during Trump's term" in a practical sense — is extremely high. I therefore estimate **95%** probability that the event will resolve as 'Yes' under common-sense operational interpretations.

Key factual drivers behind that blind assessment: the large, coordinated executive actions in 2025–2026 that removed operational capability; documented transfers into State; public statements by administration officials claiming intent to eliminate; and widespread termination of contracts and programs that accomplish the practical effect of elimination.

**Stage 2 — Market calibration (look at the current market price Yes: 0.33 / No: 0.67):**

The market price (Yes 33%) is far lower than my independent assessment. There are two non‑mutually‑exclusive reasons markets may be pricing this way:

- **Definition/resolution ambiguity.** If the market's resolution criteria require statutory abolition by Congress (i.e., a law removing USAID from the U.S. Code or a formal repeal), then the fact that Congress explicitly refused to authorize formal shuttering in 2026 means the correct resolution could be 'No'. Traders who have read or interpreted the contract narrowly are rationally pricing in a low probability of formal legislative elimination.

- **Dispute and adjudication risk.** Even if functional elimination has happened, prediction market admins or judges might rule that "eliminated" means legally abolished. Anticipation of a contested settlement or an administrative decision to void/declare unresolved can push Yes prices down.

Given those two plausible market interpretations, the current price is not necessarily an inoculum of informational inefficiency — it may reflect caution about the contract's exact wording and resolution standards. However, if the market's adjudicators accept operational/functional elimination (which is how most neutral observers, NGOs, and many international partners will treat the situation), then Yes is massively underpriced at 33% and represents a strong buying opportunity.

My advice to traders: verify the contract's official resolution language. If adjudication permits an operational definition (agency no longer operates independently / functions absorbed), treat the 33% price as a mispricing. If the contract explicitly requires statutory repeal, the market price may be defensible.