The Trump administration’s draft executive order proposes a significant restructuring of the US State Department, a move that could reshape American diplomacy as it has been known since the department’s inception in 1789. This reorg as proposed seeks to largely end operations in sub-Saharan Africa. It will further cut 11 additional bureaus that address climate, human rights, gender equality, reproductive health, and other key development priorities.
The existing workforce at the State Department includes approximately 13,000 members of the Foreign Service, 11,000 civil service employees, and 45,000 locally employed staff stationed at over 270 diplomatic missions globally. Under the proposed changes, this workforce would experience drastic changes that would shift the department’s operational priorities and abilities.
If enacted, the draft order would result in one of the largest reorganizations of the State Department in its history. Among the major cuts outlined in the proposal is the elimination of the Bureau of African Affairs, which has been crucial for US engagement with African nations. The department will repeal the office of special envoy for climate. The proposal will further remove the Bureau of International Organizations from the State Department’s organizational chart. The Office of Global Women’s Issues and the Bureau of Humanitarian Affairs would share similar gruesome fates.
Second, it proposes shrinking the State Department down to just four regional bureaus, with an emphasis on the Indo-Pacific, Latin America, and then the Middle East and Eurasia. This change is an important indication that the U.S. is making a turn toward a more regionally-oriented diplomatic approach.
Beyond this, the draft order recommends sweeping, unprecedented changes in the State Department’s management of its personnel. The proposal recommends posting US diplomatic personnel to posts within major geographic regions for their entire career. This would substitute for the present process of shuffling military around the world. Our aspiring diplomats don’t pass the Foreign Service exam. Yet this test had previously been the durable entrypoint into diplomacy.
The changes extend to educational initiatives. The State Department will fix the Fulbright scholarships. They will now be concentrating solely on master’s-level study in national security-related disciplines and double down on critical languages.
Without seeking to undermine the president’s goals of making government more efficient and reducing wasteful spending, the draft executive order highlights a clear desire for greater oversight. It further says, “All positions and duties shall have the express written authorization of the President of the United States.” This establishes that future appointments and delegated or assigned tasks will need explicit authorization from the top tier of government.
The proposed cut of a third of our diplomatic personnel has alarmed many about its impact on management and US diplomatic interests abroad. A leaner crew will take care of the US diplomatic front with our neighbours to the North. This team will work directly under the North American Affairs Office (NAAO) Office of the Secretary.
Many critics fear that this extreme overhaul will lead to the US retreating from top global challenges. In particular, they highlight growing concerns with climate change and human rights. The removal of offices specifically focused on these essential areas could be interpreted as a marker for a larger retreat from America’s enduring diplomatic priorities.
Supporters of the plan say it is a “disciplined reorganization” to improve efficiency. They claim it will provide “a more integrated, efficient future” by “streamlining mission delivery” – saving “waste, fraud and abuse” from within the department.
As discussions surrounding this draft executive order unfold, stakeholders from various sectors will closely monitor its implications for both domestic and international diplomacy. Taken together, the proposed changes would be the largest administrative reversal. More importantly, they signal a likely shift in the American foreign policy priorities of tomorrow.