You're mistaken on the law
Wrong, While a president cannot abolish USAID outright due to its statutory foundation, they can significantly weaken its effectiveness through executive control. As head of the executive branch, the president appoints the USAID Administrator and sets overall policy direction, allowing them to influence how the agency operates. By proposing drastic budget cuts, the president can restrict funding, within the controls Congress allows. Additionally, the administration can shift USAID’s focus away from traditional development programs, redirecting resources to other priorities. Through hiring freezes, delays in appointing key leadership, or placing officials opposed to USAID’s mission in critical roles, the agency’s ability to function can be weakened. Furthermore, imposing additional bureaucratic hurdles, regulations, or oversight measures can slow down its operations to a halt. While these strategies wouldn’t formally eliminate USAID, they could make it functionally ineffective. This same process could effectively render the Dept. of Education defunct.
Much in the same way as executive orders rendered the Immigration Act functionally dead.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 is the primary border and immigration law that has been heavily regulated, altered, and, at times, rendered functionally ineffective by executive actions. The INA established the framework for U.S. immigration policy, including border enforcement, visa categories, deportation procedures, and asylum regulations. However, over the years, multiple presidents have used executive actions to either expand or restrict its enforcement, often bypassing Congress.
One key section of the INA that has been frequently altered is Section 212(f), which gives the president broad authority to suspend the entry of non-citizens deemed "detrimental" to U.S. interests. This has been used for both strict border enforcement (e.g., Trump's travel bans) and more lenient policies (e.g., Biden limiting deportations). Similarly, asylum laws under the INA have been reshaped by executive action, such as through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) under Obama or the Remain in Mexico policy under Trump, which was later rescinded by Biden.
Because of this executive overreach, different administrations have swung U.S. border policy in opposite directions without changing the underlying law, making it nearly impossible to establish a consistent or effective immigration system. The result is a legal framework that exists on paper but is functionally ineffective due to constant executive reinterpretation and selective enforcement.
If Congress didn't want the executive branch to mess with the law, then they need to stop giving the executive branch authority over it.
