America’s diplomatic surrender
Proposed State Department overhaul would upend America’s global posture
When news of a draft executive order to reorganize the State Department leaked to the New York Times over the weekend, supporters of the administration likely saw it as President Trump delivering on yet another campaign promise.
Closing “non-essential” embassies in Sub-Saharan Africa? Eliminating offices focused on climate change and “women’s issues?” Slashing the department’s budget by nearly 50%? At first glance, these proposals might look like examples of the government waste voters elected Trump to eliminate. Why, after all, should American taxpayers fund embassies in places like Lesotho when we have pressing needs at home?
The proposed cuts suggested by the White House Office of Management slashes the State Department budget by nearly half of what Congress approved for 2025, including eliminating about 90% of support for international organizations, including NATO and the United Nations and drastic reductions to the State Dpeartment workforce
Taken together proposed changes aren’t a mere cost-cutting initiative. Taken together they are the cuts are diplomatic equivalent declaring bankruptcy.
Diplomacy as strategy, not charity
I’ve spent years analyzing American statecraft across multiple administrations. I’ll be the first to admit: the State Department is not perfect. The bureaucracy can be maddening. Some programs yield dubious returns. But what’s unfolding now isn’t reform — it’s a geopolitical earthquake that threatens to upend America’s global posture.
Here’s what’s missing from the conversation: the State Department isn’t primarily a cost center — it’s a strategic tool, carefully built over two centuries to advance American interests without resorting to force.
President Eisenhower understood this during the Cold War, when he expanded our diplomatic presence to counter Soviet influence. He knew military power alone wasn’t enough. Diplomatic presence creates leverage. When the U.S. maintains embassies, builds relationships, or provides technical assistance, we’re not just being altruistic — we’re gaining influence.
That’s why successive Republican and Democratic administrations have preserved a strong diplomatic corps. And it’s why the Trump administration’s reorganization plan is so self-defeating. The leaked proposal effectively cedes ground to China and Russia — particularly in regions where both nations are aggressively expanding their influence.
Take those embassies in Sub-Saharan Africa the administration deems “non-essential.” These missions don’t just process visas. They gather intelligence, monitor terrorist threats, facilitate U.S. business, and counter Chinese influence in resource-rich regions. Closing them doesn't save money — it surrenders strategic terrain .
Similarly, proposals to eliminate offices focused on democracy and human rights aren’t about trimming idealism. They dismantle programs designed to create stable societies where American businesses can operate and extremism struggles to take root.
Restructuring or gutting?
What’s most striking isn’t just that the administration wants to reorganize the State Department — it’s how sweeping the proposed changes are. The draft order suggests consolidating regional bureaus, gutting entire areas of expertise, and revamping the hiring process to prioritize political loyalty over professional qualifications.
One career diplomat who reviewed the draft described it to POLITICO as “bonkers crazypants,” adding, “You could give infinite monkeys infinite typewriters and they’d come up with something better.” Colorful language — but not surprising, given provisions like replacing the Foreign Service exam with criteria based on alignment with the president’s views. That’s not reform. That’s politicization.
The irony? Trump's “America First” doctrine may do what no foreign adversary has achieved: force America into a diminished global role of its own making.
The irony of Marco Rubio's position is also impossible to ignore. Before becoming Secretary of State, Rubio spent years in the Senate building foreign policy credentials as a hawk on China Latin America." While publicly dismissing reports of the reorganization as "fake news," Rubio has already overseen the dismantling of USAID and now faces a fundamental question that will define his legacy: Will he be remembered as the diplomat who modernized America's foreign service, or the one who presided over its hollowing out?
Rubio’s remarks to the State Department staff after being sworn in offers a telling glimpse of this tension – "There will be changes, but the changes are not meant to be destructive. They're not meant to be punitive."
What we stand to lose
The practical consequences are serious. The State Department’s entire budget accounts for just about 1% of federal spending — pennies on the dollar for the strategic value it provides.
If these cuts proceed, Americans traveling abroad will have fewer places to turn in emergencies. U.S. businesses will lose critical support navigating foreign markets. Intelligence gathering will suffer without diplomatic cover. And when regional crises erupt, the U.S. may have no choice but to rely on secondhand information — increasing the risk of miscalculation.
Defense Secretary James Mattis saw the writing on the wall when he told Congress, “If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.” That wasn’t hyperbole — it was a clear-eyed view of how diplomacy prevents wars that cost far more in lives and dollars.
A gift to Beijing
China, meanwhile, must be thrilled. Beijing has steadily expanded its diplomatic presence, especially in Africa — the very region where the draft plan would slash America's footprint. In 2019, China surpassed the U.S. in the number of diplomatic posts worldwide, targeting precisely those regions rich in natural resources and geopolitical value.
None of this is accidental. China’s foreign policy playbook is to gain influence through persistent diplomatic and economic engagement. If the U.S. pulls back, Beijing will only push harder.
Reform, not destruction
The cuts have not been agreed to within the administration and would need to be approved by Congress, where they would be likely to encounter stiff resistance, even among many Republicans, and possibly challenges in the courts. Many aspects of the proposed reorganization would require congressional notification and approval. The courts may ultimately decide how much of this reorganization can proceed without legislative approval. But even the uncertainty created by these proposals has consequences for America's diplomatic effectiveness.
Every administration has attempted to improve the State Department. But effective reform targets inefficiencies while preserving capabilities. This proposal does the opposite — dismantling an institution designed to promote U.S. leadership, stability, and prosperity.
We do need a conversation about how our diplomatic dollars are spent. But we also need to understand the return on that investment. The real question isn't whether we can afford diplomacy — it’s whether we can afford the strategic costs of abandoning it. In a world of rising powers and deepening global competition, cutting our diplomatic strength isn’t savings. It’s surrender.
Your arguments are good. But I don't know how you convince a single mom, working two jobs and living paycheck to paycheck, that her taxes are necessary for champagne fueled entertaining in Lesotho while, she can't do better than McDonald's for her kids.
Very valid arguments Ms Labott. I do take a little issue that the State Department was built carefully. The problems stem from the State Department no longer advancing American values. I'm not convinced that the Trump administration's goal is to advance freedom, individual liberty and limited government and project the will to defend those principles any more than the last administration. But if the goals are to re-establish American principles around the world, the risks may be worth the effort. Take care.