Former USAID employees are facing an abrupt and strict deadline to retrieve their personal belongings from the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Staff members have been notified that they will only have a narrow window on Thursday and Friday to collect their items before leaving the premises permanently.
Tight Security Measures in Place
Employees returning to gather their belongings will have to go through stringent security checks, including X-ray scans.
They will be escorted to their desks and granted only 15 minutes to collect their personal items.
Any belongings left behind will be transferred to a federal storage facility, with no guarantees that they will remain intact.
Staffers are not allowed to bring guests, children, or request alternative pickup dates.
If they are unable to make it in the allocated time slot, they may designate another colleague to collect their things.
Public Reactions to the Sudden Eviction
News of these rigid policies has sparked outrage online.
Social media users have condemned the treatment of USAID employees, with many highlighting the indignity of being rushed out after years of dedicated service.
Retired Sergeant Major Danny expressed frustration, stating that “felons are treated better than these workers who spent their lives in humanitarian assistance.”
Tim Massie also criticized the move, attributing the decision to what he called the cruelty of Trump and Musk, writing, “Children in countries served by the agency will die.
Where are the TV reporters asking if Musk & Trump are fine with children dying?”
USAID Shut Down Amid Controversy
The shutdown of USAID comes as part of President Donald Trump’s initiative to slash what his administration has deemed “wasteful” government spending.
The Department of Government Efficiency, reportedly backed by billionaire Elon Musk, has moved rapidly to dismantle the agency, reducing its workforce from 8,000 employees and contractors to fewer than 300.
Many essential programs have been cut, and federal workers’ associations have filed lawsuits in an attempt to stop the closure.
However, a recent ruling from U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols has allowed the administration to proceed with the staff terminations.
Concerns for Workers and International Programs
Beyond the impact on U.S.-based employees, the decision has raised concerns for the thousands of USAID workers stationed in challenging locations worldwide.
Some staffers have been left in unstable regions with inadequate medical care.
One employee, who is pregnant and dealing with high blood pressure, stated in a court filing that her inability to secure medical evacuation could put her life in danger.
In another case, the pregnant wife of a USAID worker was reportedly left hemorrhaging in a foreign hospital while awaiting approval for an emergency evacuation.
A U.S. senator eventually intervened, but doctors said the delay made the journey unsafe for the mother and baby.
Misleading Claims About USAID Spending
The administration has justified USAID’s closure by citing controversial expenditures, such as $1.5 million on workplace diversity initiatives in Serbia, $70,000 for a DEI-themed musical in Ireland, and $32,000 for an LGBTQ+ comic book in Peru.
However, further investigation revealed that only the Serbian grant came from USAID, while the other expenses were covered by the State Department’s Office of Public Diplomacy.
Similar misleading claims have circulated about government funding for media organizations.
The Associated Press, BBC, and Politico were among those falsely accused of receiving large sums from USAID.
While Politico did receive $44,000 in subscription fees from the government, it did not receive millions, as some social media posts suggested.
What’s Next?
The future remains uncertain for USAID’s remaining 300 employees and the programs that will survive the cuts.
While the administration claims that certain life-saving initiatives will continue, it has yet to provide clear details on which ones.
Meanwhile, critics argue that dismantling USAID will have long-term consequences for global humanitarian efforts.
As displaced employees face a rushed and humiliating exit, questions continue to swirl about the motivations behind the agency’s shutdown and whether the decision was driven by efficiency—or something else entirely.