USAID Directive to Destroy Classified Records Sparks Legal and Political Controversy
A recent directive from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has raised significant concerns regarding the handling of classified and personnel records. An email from Erica Carr, USAID’s acting executive secretary, instructed remaining staff to convene at the agency’s former headquarters in Washington, D.C., to destroy sensitive documents. The email specified that employees should “shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break.”
This directive comes amid a substantial reduction in USAID’s operations under the Trump administration, which has led to mass layoffs and the termination of approximately 83% of its programs abroad. The agency’s Washington headquarters is being vacated, with plans for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to occupy the space.
In response to the document destruction order, unions representing government employees and contractors have filed an emergency motion in federal court. They argue that the mass shredding violates federal record-keeping laws and could impede ongoing litigation challenging the dismantling of USAID. The unions have requested a temporary restraining order to halt the destruction of records, emphasizing that the loss of vital documents could hinder the agency’s potential resumption of operations if they prevail in court.
The situation has also drawn criticism from lawmakers. Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the administration of attempting to eliminate evidence of potential wrongdoing by hastily destroying documents.
The broader context includes significant restructuring efforts led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been aggressively reducing the federal workforce and targeting agencies like USAID for downsizing. These actions have sparked legal challenges and raised concerns about the preservation of essential governmental functions and records.
As legal proceedings continue, the court has ordered both parties to submit status reports, with a hearing anticipated to address the unions’ concerns and the legality of the document destruction directive.
