The Trump administration is taking a step back from a controversial document circulating within the State Department that proposes significant changes to the current diplomatic framework. This draft executive order aims to dismantle the career diplomatic corps in its existing non-partisan form and significantly reduce the number of embassies worldwide. The document, which was obtained by Government Executive, has sparked considerable debate regarding its implications for U.S. foreign policy and diplomatic relations.
At the core of the proposed changes is the elimination of the Foreign Service Officer Test, which evaluates candidates for the Foreign Service. Instead, new guidelines for assessing potential hires would prioritize traits such as “demonstrated charisma,” “verbal authenticity,” and “diplomatic appearance.” Moreover, candidates would need to show “alignment with the president’s foreign policy vision,” with any hiring decisions requiring approval from the White House to ensure compatibility with administration objectives.
Career Foreign Service officers are essential in executing the policies of various administrations. Unlike political appointees, they are a cadre of experts who do not serve at the pleasure of the president. The draft order attempts to reconfigure this structure, shifting these generalist positions into regional specialists focused solely on their designated areas. This shift raises concerns about the effectiveness and flexibility of U.S. diplomatic efforts globally.
Following the leak of the draft executive order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio labeled the document as “fake news,” suggesting that the coverage by outlets such as The New York Times was a result of a “hoax.” A spokesperson for the State Department echoed this sentiment but did not address the specific contents of the draft. Reports indicate that the document may have originated from Pete Marocco, a politically appointed official recently dismissed by Rubio, who had been involved in dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development.
The draft executive order includes provisions for a buyout opportunity for all foreign and civil service personnel by September 30, 2025. Sources within the State Department have indicated that a reorganization plan could be revealed as early as April 22. Under this plan, employees may receive buyout and early retirement offers, with a cap on the number of staff eligible for these offers set at approximately 2,700.
The draft order proposes the closure of numerous offices within the State Department, including the Africa bureau, which would be replaced by a new Special Envoy Office for African Affairs directly reporting to the White House. Additionally, offices focused on climate, oceans, scientific affairs, foreign assistance, public diplomacy, and human rights could face significant downsizing or consolidation. The fate of employees working in these offices remains uncertain, but layoffs seem likely.
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), which represents foreign service officers, expressed concern over the potential damage caused by the leaked document. They criticized the manner in which the State Department is being reorganized, stating, “Reorganization of the State Department by leaks and confusion isn’t a strategy—it’s a recipe for failure.” The AFSA highlighted that the mere existence of the draft has already resulted in a demoralized workforce and weakened U.S. diplomacy.
The draft executive order sets an aggressive deadline of October 1 for the implementation of these sweeping changes, a timeline that many employees feel is unrealistic. One current Foreign Service officer noted the potential closure of the Public Diplomacy office as a “radical change of course,” emphasizing the critical role this office plays in countering foreign disinformation.
Critics within the State Department have raised concerns about the apparent lack of understanding regarding departmental operations reflected in the draft. For instance, merging the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations with the Office of Foreign Missions could create confusion, as the latter oversees foreign missions within the U.S. and is unrelated to managing overseas buildings. Additionally, one employee pointed out that this reorganization may contradict the administration’s stated goals of opposing China and Iran while ensuring the protection of Americans abroad.
In conclusion, the proposed changes outlined in the draft executive order underscore a significant shift in the U.S. diplomatic landscape under the Trump administration. As reactions continue to unfold, the implications of these changes remain a critical topic for discussion among current and former diplomats.
