The recent announcement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, declaring the termination of 83% of USAID programs, has prompted significant scrutiny following the emergence of a concerning internal memo. This directive instructs remaining staff to proceed with the destruction of classified documents, intensifying suspicions over possible cover-ups within the agency.
Rubio's USAID Purge Sparks Concerns Over Document Destruction
Rubio's USAID Purge Sparks Concerns Over Document Destruction
After Secretary of State Marco Rubio's decision to cut 83% of USAID programs, a memo revealing orders to destroy classified documents raises questions about agency transparency.
In a sweeping review lasting six weeks, Rubio identified that approximately 5,200 USAID contracts were either wasting taxpayer funds or conflicting with U.S. national interests. The 1,000 programs that remain are now to be managed by the State Department, representing one of the most substantial transformations for the agency in recent history. However, instead of fostering an environment of transparency, an email obtained by Politico indicates that USAID employees have been ordered to shred sensitive documents as quickly as possible, utilizing burn bags when shredders are not operational.
Legal analysts emphasize that this mass destruction of federal documents likely violates the Federal Records Act, yet the agency has refrained from providing a rationale for the abrupt cleanout. With Customs and Border Protection set to take over the Ronald Reagan Building, there are rising concerns that USAID's actions may indicate deeper issues beyond mere administrative inefficiencies. As the situation unfolds, one question looms large: what information was deemed so sensitive that it warranted hastily disappearing before the transition?
Legal analysts emphasize that this mass destruction of federal documents likely violates the Federal Records Act, yet the agency has refrained from providing a rationale for the abrupt cleanout. With Customs and Border Protection set to take over the Ronald Reagan Building, there are rising concerns that USAID's actions may indicate deeper issues beyond mere administrative inefficiencies. As the situation unfolds, one question looms large: what information was deemed so sensitive that it warranted hastily disappearing before the transition?
