Which agencies will Trump eliminate?

The case for Yes is that USAID has long been a visible target for conservative critics, and an administration intent on shrinking foreign-aid bureaucracy could take aggressive steps to dismantle, merge, or defund it. If Trump returns with a compliant Congress and strong executive focus, there is a plausible path to eliminate the agency in practice, especially if the definition used by the market rewards formal abolition, major reorganization, or permanent cessation of operations.

The case against Yes is stronger on the legal and procedural side. USAID is a statutory agency embedded in a broader foreign policy and appropriations framework, so outright elimination usually requires congressional action or at least sustained control over the legislative process; that makes a clean kill harder than rhetoric suggests. Even hostile administrations often find it easier to reduce staffing, redirect functions, or freeze programs than to abolish an agency outright, especially one tied to international commitments and bipartisan constituencies.

Compared with the current market price, the 31 percent Yes probability looks somewhat low but not wildly off. The market appears to be assigning substantial weight to Trump’s anti-bureaucracy posture and the possibility of rapid executive action, yet may be underestimating how often agency-elimination bets fail because formal abolition is much harder than operational weakening. The most likely mispricing is that traders may be conflating severe downsizing with true elimination; if the event requires USAID to cease to exist as a distinct entity, the odds should stay below 50 percent unless there is clear evidence of legislative momentum.