State Department personnel protesting mass layoffs on July 11, 2025. Employee photo used with permission.
Carelessly Reducing the Size of the State Department is a Profound Mistake
The United States government appears to be determined to reduce its influence, competence, and effectiveness in global affairs—all while China is actively increasing its diplomatic budget. In addition to the dissolution of USAID and the efforts to dismantle the international broadcasters under USAGM, the Executive Branch is currently engaging in the beginnings of an effort to kneecap yet another agency, the U.S. Department of State.
For years, I have been a vocal critic of a variety of State Department initiatives, particularly in the public diplomacy realm. I highlighted efforts I believed to be of questionable effectiveness, like specific video games and Twitter diplomacy in its early years. The intent of these criticisms was to help the department better align its public diplomacy activities with demonstrable metrics, thus increasing apparent efficiency and effectiveness and thereby providing extra ammunition in defense of its own budget on the Hill. Despite my history of criticisms, I firmly believe the State Department is a fundamentally critical element of U.S. influence abroad and a repository of incredible professionalism and knowledge that the U.S. government would be severely mistaken to forsake. Building the kinds of institutional knowledge, expertise, and influence retained in the State Department takes considerable time, training, and cultivation. Without the level of professionalism exuded by career State Department employees and diplomats, the United States will be flying blind without sound analysis and subject to the pitfalls of groupthink.
At a time when efficiency is as the forefront of political desirability, the State Department delivers on investment—whether that is helping secure U.S. business interests, tourism, securing the legal safety for our military servicemembers overseas, or creating long term friends of the United States through exchange programs. Despite this, the Trump administration has proposed a severely gutted State Department budget.
But while efficiency is the stated goal, it does not appear to be the practice. Similar to some of the DOGE firings at other government agencies, which included essential personnel that they then needed to rehire, the methods of selecting personnel for layoffs appears to have been haphazard at best. Numerous testimonies I have heard or read from State Department employees have noted that they were dismissed based on their position within the department in May, rather than the current or future position they have been assigned since. The information I am receiving and seeing indicates that even award-winning personnel were dismissed.
Career professionals of the State Department dedicate their service to the U.S., ultimately carrying out and publicly supporting the policies of whichever administration is in office. They often possess advanced degrees and years of experience that make them extraordinarily qualified to serve as the best people in their positions. My LinkedIn feed is covered with the testimonies of State employees who dedicated their professional lives, their personal time, and made sacrifices to serve the U.S. Government’s foreign policy goals regardless of administration because they believe in the greatness of America.
Their reward for years or decades of dedicated service and competence? Callous dismissal without recognition of their value.
The expertise being dismissed represents a major loss for the United States and demonstrates our leaders haven’t learned the lessons of the past. After the dissolution and absorption of USIA into the State Department in the 90s under the Clinton Administration, policymakers, academics, employees, and commentators alike spent the next twenty years after 9/11 calling for the establishment of a new USIA while bemoaning the loss of talent that would never be fully recovered.
Even in areas of increasing importance, like competition with China, the State Department has eliminated numerous offices and experts, hampering the information and knowledge available to the Secretary of State and the President. Amongst the eliminations are staff that focus on multilateral institutions in the Asia-Pacific region—a bewildering choice when considering the necessity of countering China’s strategic weight with the economies and resources of neighboring countries.
There is also an apt comparison worth drawing here. A major contributing factor to the decline of interest in military service is the decreasing number of Americans who know someone who served in the military. When we think about who we want to serve as our diplomats, we want the best and brightest—patriotic Americans who understand their country well, and the countries in which they are assigned service. With even fewer Americans exposed to our diplomats, and that number set to shrink, we will end up relying further on our servicemembers called to arms because we have neither the expertise or interest in solving our nations’ foreign policy challenges diplomatically. As General James Mattis is routinely quoted as saying, “…if you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition, ultimately.”
Diplomacy is personal, and it requires personnel. State Department personnel and diplomats gather the knowledge, build the relationships, and provide the advice necessary to extend American influence and gain leverage. They help prevent wars, secure the peace after victories, and augment the power of the American military and economy. Without them, we’ll spend a lot more resources dealing with the consequences of what we’ve failed to accomplish peacefully.
