Which agencies will Trump eliminate?
Based on clear executive actions, formal notifications, mass staff removals, and program cancellations in 2025, I assess with very high confidence that USAID was eliminated as an independent agency during Trump's term.
Analysis
**Stage 1 — Blind analysis (ignore market prices):**
The contemporaneous factual record (January–July 2025) points to a decisive and implemented dismantling of USAID as an independent agency. Key events show: an immediate executive freeze on foreign aid (Jan 20, 2025), a State Department notice to Congress (Mar 28, 2025) stating intent to shutter USAID and realign functions by July 1, 2025, mass staff layoffs/leave actions in March 2025, and the cancellation of roughly 83% of USAID programs. By mid-2025 USAID had been absorbed operationally into the State Department's Office of Foreign Assistance. Those concrete operational steps meet a reasonable threshold for treating USAID as "eliminated" as an independent agency during the Trump administration.
Legal challenges exist and were ongoing as of July 1, 2025; however, litigation typically takes months–years and even a favorable court ruling would face practical obstacles (rebuilding independent infrastructures, rehiring staff, reappropriating funds). Given the administration’s clear intent, immediate implementation, and the practical difficulty of restoring an independent agency within the same presidential term, the probability that USAID was eliminated during Trump's term is extremely high. I place my independent "Yes" probability at **98%**. The remaining 2% reflects low-probability paths: a rapid judicial order or congressional action that reinstates USAID as an independent statutory agency within the term, or an arbiter/resolution ruling that applies a narrower definition of "eliminated".
**Stage 2 — Market calibration (compare to current market prices):**
Current market price: Yes 0.36 / No 0.64. This is materially lower than my independent assessment. Possible reasons the market is mispricing the event include:
- *Ambiguity in interpretation:* Some traders may interpret "eliminated" strictly as a statutory repeal by Congress rather than administrative abolition/absorption. If contract resolution uses a narrow statutory definition, traders might prefer "No." The facts provided support elimination as an *administrative* elimination, but resolution text matters. - *Stale information or slow updating:* The market may have been formed before the March–July 2025 actions were fully known or digested, and traders haven't fully reweighted new evidence. - *Legal-uncertainty risk premium:* Traders may over-weight the possibility that ongoing litigation or later political actions (Congress or courts) will restore USAID before the event’s resolution criteria are applied, pushing the "No" side price higher. - *Hedging and political narrative:* Some participants may be hedging broader political uncertainty or believe the event requires a formal statute to count as elimination.
Given the documented on-the-ground dismantling and absorption into State, the market appears to underprice the "Yes" outcome. If the market's contract resolves on the practical/administrative disappearance of USAID (which matches the provided facts), buying Yes at 0.36 would be a favorable trade relative to my 0.98 estimate. If, however, the arbiter later rules that only a statutory repeal counts as "eliminated", the market's conservatism would be justified. Before trading, confirm the contract's exact resolution definition and the authority that will decide contested cases.
In sum: my blind assessment is 98% "Yes". The market (36% Yes) is likely mispricing due to definitional ambiguity, litigation premium, or incomplete information — creating an opportunity for traders who have verified the contract’s resolution criteria.
Arguments
For
- Clear executive actions and administrative implementation in early-to-mid 2025 demonstrate intent and execution to eliminate USAID as an independent agency.
- Formal transmittal to Congress and a concrete timeline (realignment by July 1, 2025) provide documentary evidence that meets common-sense elimination standards.
- Large-scale staff removals and program cancellations are practical proof that the agency ceased operating independently, not merely a temporary downsizing.
- Remaining functions were explicitly moved under the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance, which is consistent with elimination by absorption rather than mere renaming.
Against
- Ongoing legal challenges create a non-zero chance that a court could order remedies that restore the agency’s independent status; litigation outcomes are inherently uncertain.
- If the event's resolution requires a formal congressional statute to count as elimination, administrative absorption will not satisfy the contract, producing a potential 'No' outcome.
- Even with administrative dismantling, some programs and personnel persist under State — arguing the agency continues in substance rather than having been 'eliminated' could persuade ambiguous-resolution processes.
- Political dynamics could produce last-minute corrective actions (emergency appropriations or sunset clauses) that complicate a clean 'eliminated' determination.
Key drivers
- Executive actions on Jan 20, 2025 (90-day foreign aid freeze) that signaled administration intent
- State Department formal notification to Congress on Mar 28, 2025 to realign USAID functions into State by July 1, 2025
- Operational implementation: mass staff layoffs/leave and cancellation of ~83% of USAID programs in March–July 2025
- Functional absorption of remaining humanitarian/development work into the State Department's Office of Foreign Assistance
Risk factors
- Contract/arbiter definition risk: if resolution requires a formal statutory repeal by Congress rather than administrative absorption, the event could resolve "No" despite operational elimination
- Judicial reversal risk: a favorable court ruling could order reinstatement or block the reorganization and thereby affect resolution depending on arbiter standards
- Political reversal risk: Congress could act to reconstitute USAID during the same term (low probability but non-zero)
- Information/interpretation risk: market participants may have conflicting source material or interpret the timeline differently, creating price volatility
Scenarios
Best case
Courts and any arbiter accept administrative dismantling and absorption as constituting elimination; litigation fails to restore USAID and the agency remains non-independent, leading to an uncontested 'Yes' resolution.
Most likely
USAID remains eliminated in practice and as an independent institution (functions run by State), litigation is either unsuccessful or provides remedies that stop short of full statutory reinstatement, and event resolution authorities accept administrative elimination — yielding a 'Yes' result.
Worst case
A court rules the administrative move unlawful and orders the immediate reestablishment of USAID as an independent statutory agency, and the arbiter resolving the contract requires such formal statutory reestablishment — producing a 'No' outcome despite earlier operational dismantling.
More from this day
- PoliticsKalshi1y
2026: Trump's dream year?
AI72%MKT5%Edge+67Hidden GemGiven that the three policy pillars of the bull case (tax cuts/deregulation, likely Fed rate cuts, and a weakening of regulatory restraints via the Supreme Court) are already in place, the outcome now primarily hinges on the 2026 midterms and a small residual macro/geo risk; I assess a substantially higher chance of the bull case occurring than the market does.
- PoliticsKalshi1y
2026: Trump's bad year?
AI62%MKT7%Edge+55Hidden GemI assess a better-than-even chance that a credible "bear case" for Trump will materialize in 2026 — a year of cumulative legal, financial, and policy setbacks that meaningfully weaken his political position.
- PoliticsKalshi2y
Who will Trump pardon?
AI4%MKT48%Edge-44HypedA presidential pardon for Barron Trump before Jan 21, 2029 is legally possible but extremely unlikely; my independent probability is very low (4%) given the absence of legal exposure and the huge political costs it would impose on a sitting president.