State Dept takeover of USAID is an 'impending train wreck,' experts say

The U.S. State Department officially assumed control of U.S. foreign assistance programs and absorbed the remnants of the U.S. Agency for International Development on Tuesday, marking the end of a six-decade chapter of U.S. global engagement. In a Devex Pro Briefing marking the historic moment, veteran development leaders described the transition as a major step backward for U.S. global development efforts — and one that comes with significant risk. “Today is a very, very sad day, a tragic day, I believe, for the United States of America,” said Susan Reichle, former USAID counselor, citing the loss of 63 years of development capacity and the State Department’s lack of readiness. “They are only going to have 718 people, less than 6% of the USAID workforce, to manage these programs.” Panelists warned of an “impending train wreck” as programs shift from USAID to the State Department without sufficient personnel to oversee and manage them. “One of the calculations I’m looking at right now is the per capita management responsibility per officer at the State Department is going to go from $1.7 million to $12.8 million,” said Jim Kunder, former acting USAID deputy administrator. “Potentially, there are going to be a lot of Plumpy'Nut bars rotting in warehouses in Africa because this thing is hopelessly understaffed,” he said, referring to the ready-to-use therapeutic food, or RUTFs, that are critical to humanitarian response efforts — particularly feeding malnourished children. Jim Richardson, former director of the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance, described the reorganization as rushed and lacking clear strategic direction. “How do you deliver results? What do you want to accomplish? Do you really want to challenge China in Africa? Great. How does this new organization do that? I don't know,” he said. Panelists agreed the current struggle is about more than bureaucratic differences — but rather the open question of whether the U.S. government still believes that pursuing long-term development is in the U.S. national interest. “Does development still serve as a co-equal instrument of our global leadership?” asked Ben Feit, a longtime implementer. “That’s fundamentally, for me, the biggest strategic question.” “Don’t just think about today as the end of something — we’re just beginning the debate on what America wants from its soft power capabilities,” said Kunder.