Controversy Erupts Over USAID Document Destruction Amid Restructuring
A storm of controversy has erupted surrounding the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with allegations surfacing that the agency is instructing employees to destroy classified documents. These claims come amidst ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to restructure the agency, sparking concerns about transparency, accountability, and potential legal ramifications.
The allegations stem from a motion filed in federal court by government labor unions, asserting that USAID’s acting Executive Secretary, Erica Carr, instructed employees to begin shredding and burning documents. The unions contend that this directive suggests a rapid and potentially unlawful destruction of agency records on a large scale.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly addressed these concerns in a statement, dismissing them as "fake news hysteria." She clarified that the documents in question were old, primarily consisting of "courtesy content" from other agencies. Kelly emphasized that the original documents remain accessible on classified computer systems. She also pointed out that the order was directed to a limited number of employees, roughly three dozen, all of whom possessed the necessary security clearances to handle sensitive information.
An administration official, speaking to Fox News Digital, further elaborated on the matter, stating that the employees involved in the document elimination process were specifically appointed by the agency to review and conduct the purge. This official emphasized that these individuals were familiar with the content they were handling and were not among those recently placed on administrative leave as part of the agency’s restructuring.
The context surrounding these allegations involves significant changes at USAID. Following recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), thousands of USAID employees were either terminated or placed on administrative leave in February, as part of a broader effort to cut wasteful spending.
ProPublica initially reported on an email from Carr instructing employees to prioritize shredding documents, reserving burn bags for instances when the shredder was unavailable or required maintenance. This detail has fueled concerns that the document destruction was being carried out hastily and without proper oversight.
The State Department, which oversees USAID, has remained silent on the matter, declining to respond to requests for comment. This lack of transparency has further amplified the controversy and fueled speculation about the motives behind the document destruction.
The American Foreign Service Association, a union representing U.S. Foreign Service personnel, has taken a strong stance against the alleged document destruction. The association filed a motion in a Washington, D.C., federal court seeking a temporary restraining order to halt USAID from ordering employees to destroy documents.
In a statement, the American Foreign Service Association emphasized the critical importance of preserving government records for transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the legal process. The association cited the Federal Records Act of 1950 and its implementing regulations, which establish strict requirements for the retention of official records, particularly those relevant to legal proceedings. The association warned that the unlawful destruction of federal records could lead to serious legal consequences for those involved.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the State Department had concluded a six-week review and would cancel more than 80% of USAID programs. This announcement, coupled with the allegations of document destruction, has created a climate of uncertainty and anxiety within the agency.
The controversy surrounding USAID’s document destruction raises fundamental questions about the preservation of government records and the transparency of government operations. The allegations have triggered legal challenges, fueled public debate, and cast a shadow over the agency’s restructuring efforts. The outcome of this situation could have significant implications for the future of USAID and the broader landscape of government accountability.
The move by Customs and Border Protection to move into the USAID building adds another layer to the complex situation. This transition raises questions about the long-term future of USAID and its role in U.S. foreign policy. With the agency’s budget facing cuts and its personnel undergoing significant changes, the agency is clearly in the middle of transition.
The allegations regarding document destruction add to a growing list of concerns surrounding the changes at USAID, with many fearing a loss of institutional knowledge and experience as a result of the layoffs and restructuring efforts. As the legal challenges and public scrutiny continue, the future of USAID remains uncertain.
