On February 23, 2025, the Trump administration announced drastic measures at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), laying off approximately 2,000 employees and placing almost all remaining full-time staff on administrative leave. This decision follows the recent judicial approval allowing the administration to proceed with their plans, marking what many see as the dismantling of the agency.
According to communications sent to employees, all USAID direct hire personnel, except those designated for mission-critical roles, core leadership, and specially designated programs, will be on administrative leave starting at 11:59 p.m. ET on Sunday. The email, which was reportedly sent out by 2:42 p.m. ET on the same day, specified, “Concurrently, USAID is beginning to implement a Reduction-in-Force.” This immediate action aims to shift operational dynamics within the agency, renowned for its humanitarian assistance efforts around the world.
The decision has sparked considerable backlash from various quarters. The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), representing many USAID employees, voiced their disappointment, with President Tom Yazdgerdi stating, “Time and again, our members have shared how these reckless choices and the dehumanizing rhetoric directed at them have caused untold harm to their personal and professional lives.” The unions had previously sought to block these changes through legal action, arguing they would have severe humanitarian and relational impacts.
On February 21, 2025, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols ruled against the request from labor unions aimed at stopping the administration from proceeding with the layoffs and administrative leave. His ruling suggested the government’s rationale for these actions was largely tied to its policy goals, asserting, “Weighing plaintiffs’ assertions on these questions against the government’s is like comparing apples to oranges.” Judge Nichols pointed out the challenge of determining whether USAID’s operations were at odds with the public interest, indicating the administration had shown reasonable justification for its actions.
Since taking office, President Trump issued many policies aimed at restructuring USAID. His administration previously placed a 90-day freeze on nearly all foreign aid, arguing the existing foreign aid framework contradicted U.S. interests and values. With nearly $44 billion distributed by USAID to foreign aid initiatives, critics argue this restructuring could undermine the country’s political alliances and humanitarian efforts.
The layoffs are part of a larger effort by appointees, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to align USAID’s functions with the administration's ideology, often described as cost-effective and efficient—though many contend it undermines programs focused on alleviating global poverty and responding to crises.
Following the judge's ruling, the administration proceeded with sending out termination notices to thousands of USAID staff, including those stationed overseas. Many of these employees expressed concerns about being cut off from communications and support, especially those operating under high-risk conditions worldwide. Notices sent included reassurance about maintaining access to emergency communications to mitigate risks.
Discontent continued to grow among current and former USAID officials. Some voiced fears over the long-term impacts of dismantling the agency on international development and assistance. Marcia Wong, a former senior USAID official, criticized the cuts as “short-sighted and high-risk,” highlighting the agency's significant role during emergencies and humanitarian disasters.
Significantly, the layoffs extend beyond domestic operations. Thousands of employees stationed abroad will be recalled, with many anticipating being let go once they return to the United States. The administration touts the potential for some staff members to receive voluntary return travel funded by the agency.
The structural changes prompted discussions about the future of U.S. foreign aid and its role on the global stage. While supporters of USAID assert its importance as a key tool of U.S. soft power, critics have long argued against the efficiency and necessity of its programs, particularly evident during the 2024 presidential campaign where calls for prioritizing domestic spending intensified.
The Trump administration continues to argue its stance on USAID’s operations is aligned with re-evaluated American interests. Nonetheless, the abrupt changes raise significant questions about the ramifications of dismantling such agencies and the future of humanitarian assistance globally as the restructuring plan moves forward.
With the last embers of civil service from decades past being extinguished, many employees are left grappling with uncertainty. What lies ahead for U.S. foreign aid remains, at this point, unclear, but the expectations of rapid and comprehensive changes seem imminent under the current administration’s directive.