Four days after Donald Trump’s inauguration, Elon Musk’s top lieutenants at the Treasury Department asked its acting secretary, a career civil servant, to immediately shut off all USAID payments using the department’s own ultra-sensitive payment processing system.
The ask was so out of line with how Treasury normally operates, it prompted a skeptical reply from David Lebryk, then serving as acting Treasury secretary, who said he did not believe “we have the legal authority to stop an authorized payment certified by an agency,” according to a source familiar with the exchange.
Lebryk suggested a “legally less risky approach” would be for the State Department, which oversees USAID, to rescind the payments itself and examine whether they complied with President Donald Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order freezing foreign development aid.
Tom Krause, a former tech executive and now the top DOGE staffer at Treasury, responded that Lebryk could have legal risk himself should he choose not to comply.
This back and forth over email, described to CNN by a source familiar with it, reveals the first known indication that Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency emissaries sought to use Treasury’s tools to block some payments, fulfilling the president’s political agenda.
The ensuing controversy set off a chain reaction around Washington this week, sparking a tense political debate and emergency court proceedings over DOGE’s access to the system and the administration’s potential interest in using it to turn off payments as it chooses.
The email exchange marked a direct collision between political appointees loyal to Musk and career civil servants at the Treasury Department.
Last Friday, Lebryk announced his sudden departure from government service, ending his more than 35-year career at Treasury.
Democratic senators on Capitol Hill have demanded answers, while unions and protesters voiced fears about Musk’s potential incursion into Americans’ private data.
The controversy has also drawn attention to a previously obscure office inside Treasury called the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, which processes more than a billion payments totaling more than a $5 trillion a year.
The payment system reliably distributes Americans’ tax returns, Social Security benefits, disability payments and federal employees’ salaries. It has historically been off-limits to political appointees but Musk and his allies appear bent on breaking that precedent. In fact, Krause and his top deputy traveled to Kansas City to visit the federal office that operates the payment systems for the BFS, an ask they made prior to Trump’s inauguration that was denied by career Treasury officials at the time.
The critical, if largely unknown, BFS payment system is just one of the government nerve centers across Washington that, in less than three weeks, Musk and his DOGE teams have sought to disrupt or gain access to, including those responsible for the federal government’s work force, real estate portfolio, computer systems, and records management, just to name a few.
“People underestimate how badly, and quickly, things could go if someone starts messing with things with multiple systems underpinned by technology that isn’t native to any engineer, no matter how brilliant,” said one former BFS career official.
In a letter to lawmakers, the Treasury Department said the access to the payment system granted to Krause and a deputy was restricted to “read-only” with the payments systems. Trump’s newly confirmed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivered the same message in a private meeting with House Republicans on Monday.
But that level of access is dramatically different than what Krause and his DOGE associates had pressed Lebryk to grant in the email exchange — and came amid conflicting reports about whether the scope was more expansive than it was being conveyed.
“The hole here is what happened between the initial ask and Bessent’s sign-off,” said one source with knowledge of the events that led up to the email exchange. “Either the DOGE aspirations for what they wanted dramatically changed or the limitations they insist were placed on them aren’t the whole story.”
In an interview with Bloomberg TV Thursday, Bessent said there has been no “tinkering” with the payments system and that DOGE representatives have “read-only” access to the payments system.
Bessent also defended the work of DOGE personnel detailed to Treasury, saying they are “these are highly trained professionals. This is not some roving band running around doing things. This is methodical and it is going to yield big savings.”
None of the people at Treasury on the emails responded to inquiries from CNN this week.
There have been questions about how far Trump and Musk believe they can go in cutting back spending across the federal government, with Musk in recent days commenting gleefully about shutting down payments.
The emails also highlight how forceful the group from DOGE has been in sketching out a way to use the Treasury Department to control grant funding Trump and Musk oppose, especially from USAID toward developing foreign nations.
Any decision to turn off some payments via Treasury’s systems, especially to align with Trump’s political wishes, would be an unprecedented fiscal decision and pose a direct threat to Congress’ power of the purse by giving the president more control over which payments to make, or not.
That wasn’t the Trump delegates’ approach, however.
In a lengthy email late January 24, Daniel Katz, the chief of staff to Bessent, first wrote that the department should shut off outgoing USAID payments so the State Department could then assess if aid to foreign health care systems complied with Trump’s directives, according to the source familiar with the messages.
Katz wrote that “potentially problematic payments” out of line with the president’s orders should be paused en masse by the department.
Still, Katz was clear the new administration believed Treasury could make its own decisions.
A division of USAID that delivered money to health care systems in developing nations had already put in place a process to shut off some payments, Katz wrote, and the administration “would like to replicate” that at Treasury.
“What we would like to do is, to the extent permitted by law, temporarily pause the automatic processing of payment files,” from a USAID division called Health Systems Strengthening, Katz wrote.
Katz also wrote that Krause, Musk’s deputy at Treasury, should be given access to the payments system so he and his team could take action.
Some of the administration’s plan, Katz added, included immediately pausing all payment files still in the queue and letting Krause and others look at individual payments certified by USAID for the health care systems. The State Department could then look closer at the payments through USAID, Katz added.
The Health Systems Strengthening program at USAID has primarily funneled money into countries in Africa and Southeast Asia, as well as Indonesia, the Philippines, Guatemala and Haiti. The funds were aimed at building the countries’ health systems so they could improve care to prevent infants and mothers from dying in childbirth, control the spread of HIV and AIDS and other infectious diseases, among other projects.
In one project touted on the now-archived USAID website, the division funded an emergency room in Jordan.
Its distributions are now in a 90-day pause because of Trump’s executive order.
After Katz’s initial message two weeks ago, Lebryk was explicit that the Treasury Department shouldn’t do what DOGE proposed.
“There are also practical and personal liability issues that may come into play,” Lebryk wrote, copying a lawyer from the Treasury Department’s general counsel’s office.
But Krause, the special hire from DOGE sent to Treasury, was undeterred. “I would also recommend you consider an equal alternative liability,” he wrote to Lebryk.
“I believe we can all feel more comfortable that we hold payment at least to review the underlying payment requests from USAID now so that we can be given time to consult State,” Krause wrote, ending a middle-of-night email on Saturday, according to the source.
Frustrated with Katz and Krause’s messages, Lebryk left the department the following week, shortly after the confirmation of now-Secretary Bessent.
Initially, Bessent didn’t give Krause and DOGE any limitation on its access to the system, which Lebryk opposed, according to a source familiar with the exchange.
Yet before the weekend was over, the Treasury Department told senators in Capitol Hill that the access Krause and others had to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service systems was “read-only.”
A lawyer from the Justice Department representing Treasury reaffirmed that in court this week, telling a federal judge on Wednesday the civil litigators believed the DOGE affiliates at Treasury — Krause and one underling, Marko Elez, a Musk employee in his mid-20s — didn’t have the ability to make changes to the Treasury payments system.
The lawyers were still nailing down information about the access DOGE had to the system, however, the attorney, Brad Humphreys of DOJ’s civil division, told the judge in Washington, DC, on Wednesday.
By Wednesday night, the Trump administration had agreed only the two DOGE affiliates at Treasury, Krause and Elez, could have access to the payment system, outside of its traditional access within the department.
The court also could order that Krause’s and Elez’s access is “read only,” the Justice Department agreed.
The Kansas City BFS office provides payment services for more than 250 federal agencies and is the conduit for an extraordinary swath of critical individual payments including tax refunds, social security benefits, veterans pay, pension and education benefits.
While the payment system may not be the most well-known piece of federal infrastructure, its centrality to the operations of the US government and the lives of millions of Americans is unparalleled. It’s also among the most secure.
Access to the agency’s Secure Payment System, or SPS, is closely held and authorized only for individuals who “have a need to know the information in order to perform their official Fiscal Service duties,” according to a 2021 government privacy and civil liberties assessment of the payments infrastructure. The system maintains an audit log of all users and additional security capabilities that allow monitoring, identification and ability to locate users.
That’s all fed what have been weeks of growing concern over the Musk team’s intention: Privacy issues given the reams of personal data that flow the system. National security issues related to contracting and federal employee payments. There are also conflict of interest concerns given Musk’s own companies have received billions in government contracts in an exceedingly competitive space across multiple agencies.
“The idea that ‘read-only’… is supposed to make people feel better is not shared by people who’ve worked there or understand how the systems actually work,” the former BFS career official said.
There is little margin for error when it comes to how the US pays its own bills, something that will become an even higher stakes task as Congress and the White House circle another battle over raising the debt limit.
This story has been updated with new reporting
In a shocking new development, emails have revealed that associates of Elon Musk sought to use a critical Treasury payment system to shut down USAID spending. The emails, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, show that Musk’s associates were actively working to disrupt the flow of funds to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), a key government agency responsible for providing humanitarian assistance and development aid around the world.
The emails show that Musk’s associates were particularly concerned about USAID’s spending on renewable energy projects, which they viewed as a threat to Musk’s own business interests in the energy sector. In one email, a member of Musk’s team wrote that they were “exploring options to disrupt USAID’s funding mechanisms” in order to “protect our market share and ensure that our technologies remain competitive.”
The revelation has sparked outrage among lawmakers and government officials, who have called for a full investigation into Musk’s ties to USAID and the potential misuse of government resources for personal gain. Critics have also raised concerns about the influence that wealthy individuals like Musk have over government agencies and the potential for abuse of power.
As the story continues to unfold, it remains to be seen what consequences Musk and his associates may face for their actions. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
U.S. Rep. Jason Crow toured the base in Aurora, Colorado, Monday where officials told him that the facility will be used as a base of operations for federal immigration enforcement agencies but not as a detention center for immigrants in the U.S. illegally.
“I showed up today, started poking around like I like to do, and did discover that indeed the facility is being used for Homeland Security operations, for ICE operations,” said Crow, a Democrat, as he stood in front of the base and its sweep of dry, windblown grass.
Last week, Department of Defense officials said the base would be used to process immigrants, prompting concern from elected leaders. Crow’s visit to the base Monday didn’t turn up any signs that migrants would be housed there, such as cots, he said.
During the presidential campaign, Trump claimed that Aurora was overrun by a criminal gang from Venezuela and used the rhetoric to drive home his plan for mass deportation. Aurora officials said Trump’s statements were overblown.
In a surprising turn of events, President Trump has announced that he will be pausing the tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and Mexico. This decision comes after months of tense negotiations and threats of economic retaliation.
Additionally, in a separate development, the headquarters of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been sealed off. The reasons for this sudden closure are unclear, but it has raised concerns among employees and the international development community.
Stay tuned for more updates on these breaking news stories. #Trump #Tariffs #USAID #LiveUpdates
Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s former finance minister, excoriated Trump’s tariffs in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today, blasting them in part as “so unjustified and so pointless.”
“These tariffs are being imposed truly for utterly no reason,” Freeland said. “The pretext offered is the flimsiest pretext possible.”
The White House has said it slapped a 25% tariff on Canadian goods to pressure the country into blunting the flow of fentanyl and immigrants into the U.S.
Freeland pushed back on that premise, saying that less than 1% of the fentanyl that comes into the U.S. moves across the northern border.
In fact, according to the White House’s fact sheet on tariffs, 43 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the northern border last fiscal year. In contrast, more than 21,000 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the southern border with Mexico during the same period, according to the administration.
“If border security were the issue, this could be solved in five minutes,” said Freeland, a member of Canadian Parliament who served as the country’s finance minister from August 2020 through December 2024.
Freeland, who is running to succeed outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, said Canadians were rallying against the Trump administration’s tariffs program. In response to the president’s repeated comments that Canada should become the 51st state, she said “our sovereignty is not negotiable.”
“If you hit us, we are going to hit back, and the whole country is going to be proud to do that,” she said.
President Trump is set to discuss tariffs with officials from Canada and Mexico as tensions rise over trade policies. The meeting comes as the U.S. looks to renegotiate NAFTA and implement tariffs on steel and aluminum imports.
In a surprise move, Elon Musk announced that his company, SpaceX, will be shutting down its USAID program. Musk cited concerns over government regulations and bureaucracy as reasons for the decision. The move has sparked controversy and debate over the future of government-funded space exploration.
Stay tuned for updates on these developing stories. #Trump #tariffs #Canada #Mexico #Musk #USAID #SpaceX #trade
File (2024): Schatz speaks about funding for Lahaina’s long-term recovery at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Nov. 19, 2024. PC: US Sen. Brian Schatz
On Wednesday, US Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) was named Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations. Schatz is also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“This new role will put me in a better position to continue the hard work of strengthening US diplomacy overseas,” Schatz said. “I’m committed to working with Chairman [Lindsey] Graham and my committee colleagues to stand by our friends, partners, and allies around the world, honor our international commitments, and deliver much-needed humanitarian aid to those most in need.”
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations is responsible for appropriating billions of dollars in funding for the US Department of State, US Agency for International Development (USAID) and other critical agencies and programs that provide humanitarian aid, global health support and economic and security assistance, among other things to those in need around the world.
In a recent development, Senator Brian Schatz has been named the lead Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee overseeing State Department and USAID funding. This important role will allow Schatz to play a key role in shaping funding decisions that impact international affairs and diplomacy. Stay tuned for updates on how Schatz’s leadership will influence these critical funding decisions. #MauiNow #SenatorBrianSchatz #StateDepartment #USAID #FundingDecisions
President Donald Trump may be preparing to issue an Executive Order (E.O.) purporting to dissolve the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and fold some or all of its functions into the State Department, according to reporting that emerged on Friday, Jan. 31. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Chris Murphy (D-CT), among others, immediately objected that the president does not have the authority to dismantle USAID without an act of Congress. As of Sat., Feb. 1, the USAID website appeared to have gone dark. Dissolving USAID would be a final assault on the foreign aid agency, where the administration already has issued a stop-work order for huge swaths of development assistance and other aid, abruptly put at least 56 of its senior career staffers on administrative leave, and laid off several hundred contractors working directly for the agency.
Such an action, however, likely would go far beyond the executive branch’s actual legal authority. The bottom line: while some functions delegated from the president to the secretary of state, and in turn to the administrator of USAID, could likely be pulled back by executive action alone, wholesale dissolution of the agency or formal transfer of functions provided by Congress would require legislation. Let’s unpack why.
Can the President Dissolve USAID Without An Act of Congress?
No, not lawfully. In 1961, USAID was created by an E.O. issued by President John F. Kennedy (E.O. 10973), based in part on authority provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. But a later act of Congress (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states:
(a) In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. (emphasis added)
The key language here is “there is within the Executive branch of Government [USAID]” (see sections 6562/6563). Those are the words Congress uses to establish an agency within the executive branch. It would take an act of Congress to reverse that – simply put, the president may not unilaterally override a statute by executive order.
The 1998 statute also transfers only certain functions of USAID to the State Department, and in essence requires USAID to handle all other pre-existing USAID functions described in the Foreign Assistance Act. This means that, at a minimum, Congress asserted a role for itself in such transfers of functions as well as early as 1998.
Also in the 1998 Act, Congress gave the president a near-term, time-limited opportunity to reorganize these departments (22 USC 6601). Specifically, the Act provides, among other things, that within “60 days after October 21, 1998,” the president may, in a “reorganization plan and report” to be provided to Congress:
“(1) … provide for the abolition of the Agency for International Development and the transfer of all its functions to the Department of State or (2) in lieu of the abolition and transfer of functions . . . provide for the transfer to and consolidation within the Department of the functions set forth in section 6581 of this title; and may provide for additional consolidation, reorganization, and streamlining of AID . . .”
President Bill Clinton submitted the statutorily-envisioned report to Congress on Dec. 30, 1998, within Congress’ specified 60-day window. In that report, the Clinton administration explicitly chose to retain the independence of USAID as its own agency (while providing for certain forms of coordination and resource sharing). It stated:
(d) United States Agency for International Development. Effective April 1, 1999, the United States Agency for International Development shall continue as an independent establishment in the Executive Branch.
Congress provided the president the opportunity to modify or revise that plan (6601(e)) until the effective date of the reorganization plan, which the 1998 Act specified as no later than April 1, 1999 with respect to some USAID functions, and Oct. 1, 1999, with respect to the opportunity for abolition of the agency (6601(g)(2)). No prospective modification or reorganization authority was granted to the president beyond those effective dates.
Finally, a much more recent provision of law – section 7063 of the FY24 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (SFOAA) – explicitly requires both congressional consultation and notification to Congress for reorganizations, consolidations, or downsizing of USAID. Absent consultation and notification, actions to “eliminate, consolidate, or downsize” USAID or “the United States official presence overseas” would not be lawful.
In short, Congress established USAID as its own agency and asserted its role in transfers of functions between USAID and State. It authorized the president to abolish or reorganize USAID for a moment in time, in accordance with the plan it authorized the then-president to provide in 1998. That reorganization occurred, with USAID’s independence retained. And there is no additional authority granted by Congress to the president to abolish USAID as an agency.
Is There Scope for Real Reform?
As even the brief overview above demonstrates, USAID and the State Department are deeply connected agencies, and there may be legitimate policy reasons to seek to reorganize or restructure their relationship in some ways. Some of those measures could be undertaken unilaterally within the executive branch (like ensuring USAID activities hew closely to the State Department’s country strategies at posts in the field, or even transferring certain presidentially-delegated functions as noted above). At the same time, there are also compelling policy reasons for USAID to retain its own, independent leadership structure, which is the choice made by Congress, and by the presidency when given an opportunity by Congress to decide this issue in the past.
If the Trump administration wishes to engage in a process with Congress to justify its view that USAID should no longer exist as its own agency, and seek legislation to effectuate that policy, it can do so. But wholesale dissolution of USAID, without an act of Congress, should not be confused with real, policy-oriented reform. It should instead be understood as another component of the Trump administration’s broadside against foreign assistance and U.S. government institutions writ large.
USAID has ongoing activities in more than 120 countries, with dozens of field offices around the globe. It works in the poorest countries, in countries affected by conflict, and in geopolitically strategic areas for advancing U.S. interests. Especially in light of the Trump administration’s already deeply damaging freeze on foreign aid, impacting everything from counter-trafficking and counter-narcotics assistance programs, to programs aimed at conflict prevention and stabilization, strengthening democratic governance, improving global health and food security, and more, the consequences of this action could be devastating to U.S. national security interests and to the well-being of some of the world’s most vulnerable populations.
What Will Happen Next if Trump Purports to Dissolve USAID by E.O.?
Litigation and congressional oversight are certain to follow, but the question is how effective either will be in the immediate term at stopping the most damaging impacts for USAID’s programs and its employees. The details of the E.O. will shape how specific challenges to the action unfold, but expect to see at a minimum suits brought by beneficiaries of USAID programs, impoundment act challenges, and more.
IMAGE: The front of the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID) headquarters building is seen on September 15, 2014, in Washington, DC. (Photo by J. David Ake/Getty Images)
As of now, the President does not have the authority to dissolve the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through executive order. USAID was established as an independent agency by an act of Congress in 1961, and therefore, its existence and operations are governed by legislation.
While the President does have the power to issue executive orders that influence how agencies like USAID operate, he cannot unilaterally eliminate the agency altogether. Any significant changes to USAID’s structure or mission would require congressional approval.
It is important to note that USAID plays a crucial role in providing humanitarian assistance and promoting development around the world. Dissolving the agency could have far-reaching consequences for global aid efforts and U.S. foreign policy objectives.
Therefore, the President would need to work with Congress to make any changes to USAID’s status or functions, rather than attempting to dissolve the agency through executive order.
The website of the US Agency for International Development went offline without explanation Saturday as thousands of furloughs, layoffs and program shutdowns continued amid President Donald Trump’s freeze on US-funded foreign aid and development worldwide.
Congressional Democrats have battled the Trump administration increasingly openly, expressing concern that Trump may be headed toward ending USAID as an independent agency and absorbing it into the State Department. Democrats say Trump has no legal authority to eliminate a congressionally funded independent agency, and that the work of USAID is vital to national security.
Trump and congressional Republicans say much of foreign aid and development programs are wasteful. They single out programs they say advance liberal social agendas.
The fear of even tougher administration action against USAID comes two weeks into the administration’s shutdown of billions of dollars of the United States’ humanitarian, development and security assistance.
The US is the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid by far. It spends less than 1% of its budget on foreign assistance, a smaller share overall than some other countries.
Administration officials had no comment Saturday when asked about concerns expressed by lawmakers and others that Trump may be planning to end USAID as an independent agency.
President John F. Kennedy created USAID at the height of the Cold War to counter Soviet influence. Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act in 1961, and Kennedy signed that law and an executive order establishing USAID as an independent agency. USAID today is at the center of US challenges to the growing influence of China, which has a successful “Belt and Road” foreign aid program of its own.
USAID staffers spent Friday and Saturday in group chats monitoring the fate of their agency, giving updates on whether the USAID flag and signs were still up outside headquarters in Washington. As of late Saturday afternoon, they were.
In a Friday post on X, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said presidents cannot eliminate congressionally appropriated federal agencies by executive order, and said Trump was poised to “double down on a constitutional crisis.”
“That’s what a despot — who wants to steal the taxpayers’ money to enrich his billionaire cabal — does,” Murphy said.
Billionaire Elon Musk, advising Trump in a campaign to whittle down the federal government in the name of efficiency, endorsed posts on his X site calling for dissolving USAID.
“Live by executive order, die by executive order,” Musk posted Saturday in reference to USAID.
Trump placed an unprecedented 90-day freeze on foreign assistance on his first day in office January 20. Days later, the State Department froze nearly all foreign assistance worldwide, shutting down thousands of programs around the world and forcing the furloughs or layoffs of many thousands.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has since moved to keep more kinds of strictly life-saving emergency programs going during the freeze. Aid groups say confusion surrounding what programs are still allowed to operate is contributing to paralysis in global aid organizations.
Rubio said Thursday, in his first public comments on the matter, that USAID’s programs were being reviewed to eliminate any that are not in the national interest, but he said nothing about eliminating USAID as an agency.
The shutdown of US-funded programs during the 90-day review meant the US was “getting a lot more cooperation” from recipients of humanitarian, development and security assistance, Rubio said.
Republicans and Democrats have fought over the agency for years, arguing whether humanitarian and development aid protects the US by helping stabilize partner countries and economies, or whether it is a waste of money. Republicans typically push to give the State Department more control of USAID’s policy and funds, while Democrats typically build USAID autonomy and authority.
A version of that legal battle played out in Trump’s first term, when the president tried to cut the budget for foreign operations by a third.
When Congress refused, the Trump administration used freezes and other tactics to cut the flow of funds already appropriated by Congress for foreign programs. The General Accounting Office later ruled that it violated a law known as the Impoundment Control Act.
The USAID website has mysteriously gone offline amidst the Trump administration’s freeze on foreign aid. This unprecedented move has raised concerns among experts and advocates who rely on the website for critical information and updates on global aid programs.
The website, which serves as a hub for USAID’s efforts to provide assistance to developing countries, has been inaccessible for several days now. This outage comes at a time when the Trump administration is facing scrutiny for its controversial decision to freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Many are questioning whether the website’s disappearance is a deliberate attempt to suppress information about USAID’s work and the impact of the administration’s foreign aid policies. Critics argue that this move could hinder transparency and accountability in the distribution of aid funds.
In response to the outage, USAID officials have stated that they are working to resolve the issue and restore the website as soon as possible. However, the timing of this incident has only fueled suspicions about the administration’s motives.
As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how this outage will impact the flow of information and resources to those in need around the world. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.
Tags:
USAID, Trump administration, foreign aid freeze, USAID website, government shutdown, international development, global assistance, US foreign policy, aid funding, international relations
The website for the US Agency for International Development, or USAid, appeared to be offline on Saturday, as the Trump administration moves to put the free-standing agency, and its current $42.8bn budget for global humanitarian operations, under state department control.
A message stating that the “server IP address could not be found” appeared when attempts were made to access the website on Saturday.
Two sources familiar with the discussions told Reuters on Friday that the Trump administration was moving to strip USAid of its independence as a government agency and put it under state department control.
The apparent failure of the website comes after plaques embossed with the agency’s official seal were removed on Friday, according to Reuters, a sign that the merger into the state department was in the works.
The move comes as the Trump administration has vowed to overhaul the distribution of foreign aid, saying last week it was freezing foreign aid while conducting a review to ensure that assistance worldwide is aligned with Trump’s “America First” foreign policies.
Current and former USAid officials said this week that a purge of senior staff appeared designed to silence any dissent and that bringing the agency under the state department would be a “seismic shift”.
“This moves the United States government to a place where the humanitarian voice will not be in high-level policy discussions,” the official said.
In an opinion column in the Wall Street Journal, the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio – who would assume oversight over USAid if it were or had been placed under the state department – outlined a new US diplomatic focus on the western hemisphere.
Rubio said he would make his first trip as the nation’s most senior diplomat to El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama and the Dominican Republic.
“These nations were neglected by past administrations that prioritized the global over the local and pursued policies that accelerated China’s economic development, often at our neighbors’ expense,” Rubio wrote.
Reuters reported that the White House was exploring legal authority that Trump could use to issue an executive order to end USAid’s independence and that he could sign such a directive as soon as Friday night or Saturday.
“Watch USAID tonight,” Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator and member of the Senate foreign relations committee, said in a post on X on Friday evening.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, citing a “rumor” that Trump planned to dissolve USAid as an independent agency, said in an X post that such a move would be “illegal and against our national interests”.
But it is unclear whether the president has the legal authority to bypass Congress and order USAid’s merger into the state department.
If placed under the state department, USAid could become a more explicit armature of foreign policy goals than it has been as the world’s largest single donor of life-saving humanitarian operations.
USAid has in the past been able to assist countries with whom the United States has no diplomatic relations, including Iran. A source at the agency told Reuters that the non-alignment with the US diplomatic mission had helped build bridges that might not have come to be under purely political objectives.
Perhaps signaling the new administration’s plan to fold the agency under the state department, Trump has not nominated a person to run USAid.
The costs of a freeze on US foreign aid grants is already being felt. Field hospitals in Thai refugee camps, landmine clearance in war zones, and drugs to treat millions suffering from diseases such as HIV are among the programs facing defunding.
In fiscal year 2023, the United States disbursed $72bn of assistance worldwide on everything from women’s health in conflict zones to access to clean water, HIV/Aids treatments, energy security and anti-corruption work. It provided 42% of all humanitarian aid tracked by the United Nations in 2024.
Following Trump’s executive order last week, the state department issued worldwide stop-work directives, effectively freezing all foreign aid with the exception of emergency food assistance in a move that experts warned risked killing people.
Rubio earlier this week issued an additional waiver for “life-saving humanitarian assistance” while Washington undertakes the 90-day review.
As the Trump administration continues to make changes to the structure of government agencies, the USAid website has gone offline as President Trump moves to put the agency under the State Department. This decision has raised concerns about the future of USAid’s independence and effectiveness in providing aid to countries in need.
Many are questioning the motives behind this move and what it means for the future of USAid’s work. Critics worry that placing USAid under the State Department could politicize the agency’s humanitarian efforts and diminish its impact on the ground.
As the website remains offline, many are left wondering about the fate of USAid and how this decision will ultimately impact those who rely on its assistance. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
