Which agencies will Trump eliminate?

The core question is not whether Trump would want to weaken USAID, but whether the agency can actually be eliminated during his term. Politically, USAID has long been a target for budget cutters and America First conservatives, and a Trump administration would have strong incentives to freeze, slash, merge, or redirect its functions. That makes a serious effort to eliminate or effectively dismantle the agency plausible, especially if staffing, contracting, and program authority are aggressively constrained early in the term.

The main obstacle is institutional and legal. USAID is an established federal agency with statutory roots, a large operational footprint, and ties to appropriated funds, so true elimination is harder than simply reducing its activity. Even a hostile administration may run into congressional resistance, appropriations language, court challenges, and bureaucratic inertia. History suggests that agencies can be hollowed out faster than they can be formally abolished, which means the market question likely hinges on the definition of eliminated rather than the more common real-world outcome of severe downsizing.

Against that backdrop, the current 23% Yes price looks somewhat low if the market is trying to price the chance of a dramatic anti-USAID move rather than literal statutory repeal. A Trump term makes some form of elimination attempt quite plausible, and the volume suggests the market has considered the issue. But if the resolution standard demands actual elimination rather than mere reorganization or partial shutdown, the probability should still stay well below 50% because Congress and the courts can block a clean kill. I would price Yes above the market, but only moderately, because the political will is likely stronger than the legal ability to finish the job.