As David wrote earlier, Trump followed through on his threats to pull the US Agency for International Development's independent status. Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that he would become the acting director of USAID to investigate its operations and the operations it finances with grant money. Rubio did say that the administration wasn't looking to end USAID, but to make sure it aligns with national priorities:

Pure fire from new acting director of USAID Marco Rubio:

"Every dollar we spend will be aligned with the national interest of the United States. USAID has a history of ignoring that and deciding that they're a global charity. These are not donor dollars, these are taxpayer… pic.twitter.com/a0aTtgoiw6

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) February 3, 2025

He went on to say that the organization has failed to further U.S. national interests and accused it of considering itself “somehow a global charity.” But he stopped short of saying the Trump administration is going to eliminate the agency, saying “this is not about ending USAID.”

Rubio said he has handed off the day-to-day work of running the sprawling aid agency to another official at the State Department.

Spokespersons for USAID, the State Department and the White House National Security Council did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The statements follow a chaotic weekend for the 64-year-old aid agency, after discussions around the agency’s future, first reported by POLITICO, gradually evolved into an apparent plan to radically restructure the agency and strip it of its autonomy. Fear mounted among staff that the agency would be dissolved and subsumed by the State Department’s office of foreign assistance, known as the “F bureau.”

And ... so? Well, it's more complicated than some may think. 

USAID exists under the aegis and authority of the executive branch ... at least to a degree. Then-president John F. Kennedy issued an EO in 1961 that allowed it to operate independently, but Congress followed up in 1998 with an enabling statute (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq) that put that status into law. The statute did place the agency within the executive branch, but that means it can't just be shut down unilaterally either. 

The website Just Security gives a brief look at the issue:

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[.]

Bill Clinton did reorganize some functions within that timeframe, at which point the agency's functions were set in statute. That doesn't mean that Trump can't order a review of operations or pause such operations, especially if the staff becomes "insubordinate" to legitimate executive authority. But Trump can't reorganize USAID into F Bureau at State without Congress passing a statute to amend the 1998 law, even if (as some claim) the agency got created by EO. The origin no longer matters if Congress later created a law (duly signed by a president, of course) to regulate its authority. 

This is the same problem that Trump will have with the Department of Education, by the way. Shutting down an agency with an enabling statute requires Congress to act; even transferring its functions is outside the authority of the executive alone. Trump can order audits and pauses, and pursue legal action for fraud and corruption, but at least as it stands now, he can't shut down or transfer USAID without Congress. 

However, the outrage from Democrats on this kind of executive action is incredibly laughable after four years of Joe Biden's unconstitutional antics in the White House. Here are just a few examples of the hypocritical "dictator" venting, via Fox's Capitol Hill correspondent Chad Pergram:

Dem MN Rep Omar on takeover of USAID: We talked about Trump wanting to be a dictator on day one. And here we are. This is what the beginning of dictatorship looks like when you gut the Constitution and you install yourself as the sole power. That is how dictators are made. What…

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 3, 2025

Raskin: Just like Elon Musk did not create USAID, He doesn't have the power to destroy it. And who's going to stop him? We are! We're gonna stop him..We don't have a fourth branch of government called Elon Musk. And that's going to become real clear. This illegal,…

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 3, 2025

Dem HI Sen Schatz on USAID: If you want to change an agency, introduce a bill and pass a law. You cannot wave away an agency that you don't like, or that you disagree with by executive order or by literally storming into the building and taking over the servers. That is not how…

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 3, 2025

Van Hollen on Musk & USAID: He may try to play dictator here in Washington DC. But he doesn't get to shut down the Agency for International Development. [

— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) February 3, 2025

Bear in mind that Joe Biden just tried to unilaterally amend the Constitution three weeks ago.  Not one of these voices spoke up about Biden's attempt at 'dictatorship' when that happened; a number of them pretended to play along with Biden's Make-Believe Amendment, in fact. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and 120 House Democrats immediately endorsed Biden's unilateral declaration despite years of court rulings to the contrary. 

And of course, all of these same Democrats insisted that Biden could appropriate $400 billion without Congress to pay off the private debt of student-loan beneficiaries. At least control of USAID is shared to some degree between both branches; Article I grants the power of the purse exclusively to the legislative branch. That is black-letter Con Law, and Democrats ignored it because it would have handed their allies a political victory at the expense of taxpayers.

Now they are shrieking because Trump and Rubio have handed taxpayers a win at the expense of the Left's allies:

What you've been paying for through USAID: pic.twitter.com/w4UymkHKLZ

— Rep. Chip Roy Press Office (@RepChipRoy) February 3, 2025

With all of that said, Trump will probably not succeed at either shutting down USAID or putting it within the State Department. But he can gum up the works for a very long time to force Congress to act to bring USAID under more direct control before it pays out another dime. If that sounds familiar, it's exactly what Joe Biden did with border enforcement in an effort to force Republicans to roll over on "comprehensive reform." And Democrats are about to discover that the crap Roy highlighted is a lot less popular than secure borders. 

Addendum: Duane Patterson reminded me of something after I wrote the post. I would assume a judge would enjoin any effort to shut down or transfer statutory functions to State, but such a lawsuit would have to come from an entity with standing. Unlike the student-loan fight, the states don't have any stake in USAID. The House or Senate could sue, but it would take a majority in either to back a lawsuit, and Democrats don't control either. It might take a while for the dispute to even get in front of a court.