Which agencies will Trump eliminate?

The core question is whether USAID is actually eliminated, not merely reduced, reorganized, or stripped of most of its functions. That distinction matters because eliminating a cabinet-level or congressionally created agency is legally and operationally harder than freezing funding or transferring programs elsewhere. Even with a hostile administration, outright elimination usually requires sustained executive action, congressional cooperation, and the ability to survive court challenges and bureaucratic resistance. Those hurdles keep the baseline probability below even odds.

At the same time, USAID is exactly the kind of agency that could become a high-profile target under a Trump administration focused on shrinking foreign aid, centralizing control, and using executive pressure to force structural changes. If the administration has strong alignment across the White House, congressional leadership, and the relevant agencies, it could plausibly hollow out USAID to the point that formal elimination becomes a political and administrative finish rather than a separate lift. The key driver is not whether there is ideological motivation, but whether that motivation is matched by procedural feasibility and sustained attention over time.

The market’s 19% yes price looks low relative to that political risk. A purely legalistic view would argue that abolition is hard, which supports the no side, but markets may be underweighting how often agencies are eliminated indirectly through defunding, transfers, mergers, and statutory changes that end up counting as elimination in market resolution language. My estimate is still not high because the burden of actually crossing the finish line remains substantial, but I do think the market is pricing in too much institutional inertia and too little willingness to pursue a hard-line restructuring agenda.