The combination of recent actions taken by the Trump administration have left many U.S. State Department employees now facing low morale and disillusionment. The administration deleted significant portions from the annual human rights reports. They highlighted especially issues of maternal and reproductive health, LGBTQ+ rights, and communities of color. This amendment became the embodiment of the administration’s “America First” priority. It has raised alarm bells among staffers who have dedicated their careers to advancing human rights around the world.
The reports, traditionally compiled by dedicated staff members and submitted to Congress by February, have undergone significant changes that many within the department argue undermine the integrity of U.S. foreign policy. The employees have long decried the process behind the decision-making, arguing it has happened with little to no transparency or consultation. The fallout from these actions is still being felt today. BOI as proposed employees are deeply concerned about the future of human rights advocacy in the agency.
Impact on Human Rights Advocacy
These changes along with others engineered by the Trump administration have flung cautionary flags around the direction of U.S. human rights programs toad and beyond. As of July 11, more than 1,350 professional staff were sent RIF notices. Further, about 3,000 other workers have departed by choice through various means including early retirement and resignation incentives. In this current administration’s budget proposal, we are seeing a drastic cut of 48%. This decision has amplified worries about the agency’s capacity to carry out its core mission.
Jose Mercado, a veteran of the State Department with 29 years of service, articulated his concerns regarding the administration’s approach. He stated, “There was no consulting. There was no analyzing. He is absolutely incorrect in the information that he provided.” Mercado was particularly critical of the decision-making process’s lack of transparency. He stressed that decisions were handed down from on high, rather than promoting joint decision-making between undersecretaries.
“By law and by practice, this is why it’s not supposed to happen this way.” – Jose Mercado
Mercado’s remarks bring to the forefront a concern that’s increasingly animating the State Department workforce. They are seeing the watering down of their reports and a shocking retreat from crucial human rights promoting work in U.S. foreign affairs.
The Role of Ideology in Policy Changes
The ideological framework of the Trump administration seems to be clearly guiding the administration’s policy decisions. Samuel Samson, a new policy advisor under the age of 30, directly blamed Europe for its “mass migration.” His comments match almost perfectly with the administration’s talking points that fuel draconian immigration enforcement. He has called for direct funding of Marine Le Pen, the French far-right leader. She’s now been charged with embezzlement. The impact of such proposals would be profoundly alarming and threaten to legitimize extremist ideologies in our mainstream political discourse.
Samson spoke to the ongoing criminal investigations into far-right elements in the UK and Germany. Please take the time to send your comments, as these investigations can influence future foreign policy decisions. Many think that catering to these radical ideologies erodes democratic principles and human rights around the world.
“They’re essentially destroying people’s lives based on some capricious nature of this administration to impose and create some political ideology.” – Policy Adviser
The idea of remigration adds a further layer of confusion. The policy entails either mass deportations or persuasion so that non-white immigrants and their descendants go back of their own free will. Human rights defenders point out that policies in line with such ideologies undermine the U.S.’s historical, bipartisan support for human rights and democratic values.
Consequences for Foreign Policy and Institutional Knowledge
As the State Department suffers through this upheaval, questions regarding reduced capacity and a flabbier foreign policy grow. Many staff members believe that removing those committed to defending human rights diminishes the agency’s effectiveness as a global watchdog. A policy adviser noted that “the institutional knowledge that’s lost in that, in the end, will affect the American people.”
The repercussions extend well past the day-to-day staffing crisis. They are particularly able to foster the permissive conditions for “unsavory business practices” with such foreign policy dealings. The adviser warned that without a strong commitment to human rights, the United States could be seen as complicit in abuses abroad.
“Diminished capabilities, weaker foreign policy and by getting rid of their watchdog… it now leaves the door open for unsavory business practices.” – Policy Adviser
These budgetary battles have often raised the ire of military leaders such as former Gen. Jim Mattis. They say State Department cuts should pay for more defense spending. This understanding underscores the widening gulf between diplomacy and military force in U.S. foreign policymaking today.