The US Department of State is facing its biggest reorganisation in decades. This month Congress is considering plans to reduce the foreign affairs workforce by 3,400 positions, cut funding to international affairs by 85% and overhaul the global network of US diplomatic missions.
That State is on the Trump administration’s radar is not a surprise given the experience of the first Trump presidency. In the first few weeks of 2017, a pseudo-department with hired outsiders was erected outsidethe Secretary’s office – effectively walling off the broader State Department from their new boss. A consultancy firm was hired to improve efficiency. Officials who had worked on Obama-era policy pieces were “blacklisted”. And important postings sat empty, many without nominations for over a year. The message was clear: diplomatic expertise, experience and bureaucratic know-how were not of value to the administration.
So how is the State Department faring in Trump’s second term? The answer is much, much worse. The hallmark features of 2017 are all present: the preference for loyalty over expertise, ideological alignment above experience and the consistent undermining of “deep state” bureaucracy. But the scale is much greater. In all, during Trump’s first term the State Department lost about 10% of its staff through successive budget cuts. If Congress approves the proposed changes, the disruption will be even more dramatic. The USAID freeze and subsequent absorption has taken most attention so far, but the State Department itself is facing radical change.
Effective diplomacy means being comfortable with incrementalism, compromises and partial solutions … It does not suit Trump’s modus operandi of transactionalism, business-like deals and quick fix solutions.
In February Trump issued an Executive Order to revamp the foreign service, explicitly directing Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “ensure faithful and effective implementation of the President’s foreign policy agenda” making clear that failure to implement is grounds for professional discipline with the potential for termination.
In April, more details of the State Department’s “revamp” emerged with Rubio announcing a plan to reorganise the foreign service outlining the closure of 132 bureaus and offices and total staff reduction of 15%. A deadline of 1 July was set for those leading the reorganisation.
Then, in May, Rubio submitted a notification to Congress proposing to cut thousands of jobs and merge or close more than 300 bureaus and offices. The notification offers more details of the administration’s proposed overhaul, setting out plans to reduce bureaucratic overlap, dissolve functions ideologically inconsistent with the administration, and embolden the Department’s regional offices by placing remaining foreign assistance under their management.
A few weeks out from the 1 July deadline, the revamp plans are underway, with Congress working on a new bill to reauthorise and reorganise the State Department. If passed, it will be the first reauthorisation of the State Department in more than 20 years.
In terms of the State Department’s funding, the 2026 budget request would see international affairs drop to its lowest level since before the Second World War, with a massive 85% decrease (USD$51.7 billion). The vast majority of cuts are to foreign aid – including global health, democracy and humanitarian assistance – and to contributions to multilateral organisations (UN funding is slashed by 83%). These will be replaced by initiatives such as a new “America First Opportunity Fund” to focus on investments that include repatriations and removals of refugees and migrants, “countering China and other near-peer rivals” and advancing US economic interests.
The budget request also includes a 9% decrease to the State Department account responsible for funding US diplomatic personnel globally. Although it does not provide further detail on the reduced presence of US foreign service globally, internal plans reveal the closure of nearly 30 US embassies and consulates globally – mostly in Africa and Europe – and the consolidation of missions from Canada to Japan.
This might make sense if the world had become more peaceful or secure. In fact, the United States is facing greater geopolitical uncertainty, with the relative decline of its influence and military heft in an era of great power competition. The issue is the Trump administration’s devaluing of diplomacy.
Effective diplomacy means being comfortable with incrementalism, compromises and partial solutions. It takes specialist skills and requires a commitment to the long-term. It does not suit Trump’s modus operandi of transactionalism, business-like deals and quick fix solutions.
While what’s happening at State has been overshadowed by the whirlwind of Trumplomacy, in the long term it may be that the administration’s efforts to undermine, defund and re-organise the US foreign service have the most lasting impact. By devaluing the profession essential to state-to-state relations, the United States is removing one of its key instruments of statecraft – with long-term effects for its international engagement.
