In an email sent on March 11, 2025, Erica Y. Carr instructed employees to empty safes containing sensitive documents, proposing shredding as the primary method of destruction and reserving burning for instances when shredders were unavailable. Reports suggest that the agency’s headquarters have seen a drastic reduction in staff presence due to ongoing layoffs, with many workers on leave or working remotely.
Key questions have arisen about the legality of the document destruction. It remains unclear whether Carr or any other U.S.A.I.D. officials sought permission from the National Archives and Records Administration, a requirement under the Federal Records Act of 1950 before the destruction of government documents. The records being destroyed could be pertinent to ongoing litigation against the Trump administration regarding former employee terminations and budget freezes affecting foreign aid.
The American Foreign Service Association, representing career diplomats, voiced deep concern over the potential loss of documents relevant to cases challenging the agency's recent actions. The association characterized the mass destruction of sensitive records as alarming, highlighting the implications for ongoing legal matters related to the agency's operations and employee status.
Key questions have arisen about the legality of the document destruction. It remains unclear whether Carr or any other U.S.A.I.D. officials sought permission from the National Archives and Records Administration, a requirement under the Federal Records Act of 1950 before the destruction of government documents. The records being destroyed could be pertinent to ongoing litigation against the Trump administration regarding former employee terminations and budget freezes affecting foreign aid.
The American Foreign Service Association, representing career diplomats, voiced deep concern over the potential loss of documents relevant to cases challenging the agency's recent actions. The association characterized the mass destruction of sensitive records as alarming, highlighting the implications for ongoing legal matters related to the agency's operations and employee status.
