In a significant move, the Trump administration announced plans to place the majority of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) staff on leave globally and cut around 1,600 U.S.-based jobs, as part of a broader effort to reduce the federal government’s size. This decision follows a federal judge’s ruling allowing the administration to proceed with its plan, despite employee lawsuits seeking to block it.
The administration notified USAID workers that, except for key personnel handling critical functions or designated programs, all direct hire staff would be placed on administrative leave, while concurrently initiating a reduction in force that would eliminate either 1,600 or 2,000 U.S.-based positions, with conflicting reports on the exact number. The motive behind this discrepancy remains undisclosed, as both USAID and the State Department have not provided clarifications.
Deputy Administrator Pete Marocco, appointed by Trump to lead USAID, intends to retain approximately 600 primarily U.S.-based staff temporarily to facilitate travel arrangements for employees and their families stationed abroad. This latest move is part of a broader strategy to dismantle USAID, which includes closing headquarters and terminating numerous aid programs, following a temporary freeze on foreign assistance.
Despite legal challenges from unions, contractors, and others questioning the administration’s authority to dismantle an independent agency without congressional approval, Trump and his ally Elon Musk argue that USAID’s operations are wasteful and aligned with a liberal agenda. Additionally, recent court rulings have demanded the administration to restore funding to global programs and provide clarity on the future of overseas staff affected by the cuts.
Overall, the administration’s actions mark a significant departure from long-standing U.S. foreign policy objectives of using aid and development initiatives to enhance national security, foster stability, and strengthen international alliances. The uncertainty surrounding the impact on affected employees and the agency’s future operations adds complexity to an already contentious situation.
