The U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), a division primarily tasked with managing refugee issues and combating illegal migration, is now set to lead the U.S. government’s response to international disasters, as outlined in an internal department cable. However, experts argue that PRM, with its limited experience and personnel, is ill-equipped for such a responsibility.
PRM’s new role is a direct transfer of duties from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which has traditionally spearheaded disaster relief efforts. This move comes in the wake of significant cuts to USAID, a process largely attributed to the Trump administration’s push to reduce the federal government’s footprint, with tech billionaire Elon Musk playing a pivotal role in overseeing the agency’s downsizing.
The reduced capacity of USAID has already raised concerns, particularly following the inadequate response to a catastrophic earthquake in Myanmar on March 25. Experts criticized the delayed and insufficient U.S. aid efforts, attributing the shortcoming to the weakening of USAID’s ability to respond swiftly to global emergencies.
The cable, known as an ALDAC (All Diplomatic and Consular Posts), was sent to U.S. embassies worldwide this week, although the exact date remains unclear. According to the document, U.S. overseas missions are now required to consult PRM for approval before taking action on foreign disaster declarations. Under the new protocol, PRM can approve up to $100,000 for initial disaster response efforts, with the possibility of additional funds based on humanitarian needs, in collaboration with other State Department offices.
Despite the change, the limited number of personnel dedicated to disaster relief has raised alarm. Out of the 525 staff previously working in USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance and its Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Relief, only 20 experts will be transferred to PRM. Sources familiar with the situation suggest that this number is grossly insufficient, and PRM lacks the necessary experience to handle large-scale disaster responses.
Jeremy Konyndyk, former director of the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Relief and president of Refugees International, expressed strong concerns about PRM’s capabilities. He described the situation as “a joke,” emphasizing that PRM, while vital in its role, is not equipped to manage disaster response efforts. Konyndyk warned that the U.S. is losing its ability to deploy specialized disaster response teams, such as the renowned Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs), which had previously been dispatched rapidly in the wake of natural catastrophes like tsunamis and earthquakes.
The shift to PRM’s leadership has raised doubts about whether the U.S. can maintain its reputation as a leader in global disaster response, especially with the Caribbean hurricane season approaching. Konyndyk argued that PRM’s structure cannot replicate the speed and operational effectiveness of DARTs, warning that the response to future disasters may be delayed or inadequate.
Under the Trump administration, USAID’s operations were severely reduced, with thousands of contractors fired and most of the agency’s 10,000 staff placed on administrative leave, facing potential termination. As a result, billions of dollars in funding for vital programs serving millions of people worldwide were slashed.
In the event of an international disaster, PRM may be forced to lean on what remains of USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance, which, according to one excerpt from the cable, could mobilize remaining staff to assist in disaster relief efforts. However, this contingency plan has done little to quell fears that the U.S. response to future global crises will be less effective and more sluggish due to the reduced staffing and resources now available.
This significant shift in disaster response strategy has raised serious questions about the future of U.S. humanitarian aid and its ability to effectively address global emergencies. As the situation unfolds, experts warn that the long-term consequences of these changes may lead to a less capable and slower U.S. response in the face of future disasters.
