By Sept. 30, 2025, whatever’s left of the U.S. Agency for International Development will be dissolved — and in its place, a new humanitarian assistance bureau could be embedded into the State Department.

This idea for the agency’s future was shared by Tim Meisburger, the head of USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, in a closed-door meeting Wednesday, according to several former and current USAID staffers, including one with direct knowledge of the information.

Meisburger — who returned to USAID this January — reportedly told some two dozen staff that the new bureau would have four offices: the first centered on acquisitions and assistance; the second centered on humanitarian and food assistance; the third targeting global disaster response; and the fourth focused on global health emergencies. This is the first reporting of this planning meeting and what was discussed.

It’s unclear how far along the idea for this potential merger is, whether U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has seen it, whether there are competing visions for USAID’s future, and whether the U.S. Congress has received an official notification of this proposed reorganization, which is required for the process. But if implemented, the approach would mean the dissolution of everything else USAID has worked on for decades — slicing away the agency’s work on democracy, governance, and human rights; economic growth and private sector engagement; and nearly all things related to development.

And for Meisburger, that would mean making “lemonade out of lemons,” according to meeting notes reviewed by Devex.

“Most of the madness is behind us,” said Meisburger, according to the same set of notes.

The bureau’s first office — that of the executive director — would be responsible for acquisitions and assistance, budget, human resource functions, risk management, vetting, and other management-level tasks.

An office of humanitarian and food assistance would envelop the global programs at the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, which focuses on countering displacement across the world.

An office of global disaster response would retain USAID’s disaster assistance response teams, or DARTs — the groups of highly trained staff that for years have led the U.S. government’s emergency response within 24 to 48 hours of a disaster. It would also include some of the outbreak response teams currently embedded within USAID’s Bureau of Global Health and surge staffing through institutional support contractors.

An office of global health emergencies would include longer-term health programming, such as initiatives under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, malaria response, and health systems strengthening.

There was mention of some straggling programs, too: The idea that was floated would be for USAID’s Bureau for Conflict Prevention and Stabilization, for example, to be merged with the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Those programs would then be brought into the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs under a different name.

The potential merger

The point, Meisburger told staff, was for the State Department to not take in any duplicate capacities. USAID’s regional bureaus would soon merge with those across the State Department, which would have foreign assistance offices embedded within them.

It’s unclear exactly how the State Department’s current Office of Foreign Assistance — which has long been responsible for the strategic direction of assistance through both USAID and State — could be affected by this concept.

One staffer told Devex that Meisburger implied that some of those in the room would move over to the State Department, though details on who that might be — or how many would be spared — were not shared with the group.

“On one level, people are finally happy to have a vision, and feel like we’re working toward something, rather than just being on the defensive and having everything cut,” said the staffer, who requested to speak anonymously for fear of retribution. “But if this is really what the vision was, couldn’t he have started there?”

Neither Meisburger nor the State Department could be reached in time for comment on this story.

Source: devex.com