President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have issued plans to reorganize the U.S. Department of State (“State”) in an effort to issue efficiency and stability in this “new era of great power competition and the rise of a multipolar order” that the country finds itself involved with (Rubio). What does this entail? How do people feel about it? Will it actually happen? Read on to find out.
WHAT IS THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE?
In its’ online description, the State consists of bureaus and offices that ultimately handle U.S. policy initiatives. These bureaus cover regional and functional topics in particular regions. State also operates in “passport agencies, foreign press centers, logistics support offices, security offices and financial service centers.” Conducting these methods of operation are the bureaus and offices that all report to six “Under Secretaries”. Groupings of bureaus and offices that report to the same Under Secretary are considered a “family”.
Regarding foreign policy, the Executive branch and Congress uphold constitutional responsibility in this field. State operates within the Executive as the leading U.S. foreign affairs agency. The “top dog” of State is the Secretary of State, which is the role that Marco Rubio has recently assumed at the start of Trump’s administration. In this position, Rubio works as the “principal foreign policy adviser” to the President. Through its’ executive operations, State advances U.S. objectives and interests in the field “shaping a freer, more secure, and more prosperous world through its’ primary role in developing and implementing the Presidents’ foreign policy.”
State also supports the foreign affairs activities of agencies like the Department of Commerce and USAID. Such activities include immigration to the U.S., U.S. representation across the globe, foreign assistance programs like World Bank, countering international crimes, foreign military training programs like the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, and the department services regarding the foreign assistance budget.
Before we move forward, take into consideration that many presidential administrations have attempted to reorganize the U.S. Department of State in whichever way they see fit. The Obama administration, for example, heavily relied on the six Under Secretaries that address Political Affairs, Economic Growth, Arms Control, Public Diplomacy and Management for his foreign policy initiatives. With these groups, he reorganized State in order to implement “robust” work for human rights, offices for global women’s issues, civil rights, etc. Obama sought to emphasize functional diplomacy. The Biden administration largely worked to expand Obama’s initiative creating new offices like the Office of Diversity and Inclusion (S/ODI), the Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI), and the Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy (GHSD integration). All that said, President Trump is not the first president to take an aggressive stance in reorganizing and “clearing house” with State.
ANNOUNCEMENT TO REORDER
In April, Rubio released a statement from the State that outlined the administration’s initiative to rearrange the department productively. He stated that State has been struggling for quite some time with enacting basic functions and responsibilities, despite the fact that its’ cost and size have largely increased over the last 15 years.
Calling it a “bureaucratic swamp”, Rubio says that he intends to work with Trump to remove offices and programs that are “misaligned with America’s core national interests”. He argues that the problem does not reside in a lack of money or employee skill and talent rather, the department’s system takes up too much time, too much money, too many people and regularly fails U.S. citizens (Council on Foreign Relations).
After delivering this statement, Rubio met with Bari Weiss with the Free Press for a podcast interview, where he expounded on the context behind this initiative. Specifically, Rubio got straight to the point by stating that the plan to reorganize and revamp State is not a cost-cutting exercise. “Foreign Policy requires a balance of policy geopolitical considerations and a level of idealism”. Rubio explains that these two things that are crucial to the operation of State are currently isolated in two places – with embassies/regional bureaus, and other bureaus for human rights, democracy and human trafficking initiatives.
Rubio made it clear that the administration’s plan to balance factors of the country’s foreign policy is NOT to get rid of anything, but to relocate some things to their respective and specific regions. In an analysis of this proposal, The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) stated, “The world has evolved, and foreign assistance must adapt accordingly” as they also mentioned that, if done correctly, reform is a highly valuable thing. Rubio seems to recognize this analyzation during the interview as he talked about the goal of the proposal being to streamline State as an ever-growing entity by implementing stability throughout its’ proceedings.
LET’S DIVE DEEPER
The public seems to have mixed feelings about this proposal. Federal News Network reported this month that because of how quickly it was published, it has “given a lot of folks heartburn”, even though the effort to reorganize and structure the department has been a long-time conversation in State.
The article highlights how the proposal signals a battle between administrative and frontline functions. Though this is not a new issue (as most inter-governmental and operational issues are), State has extensively wrestled with many presidential administrations that have identified a need to realign the departments priorities and proceedings.
In the Free Press interview, Rubio gave an example of such a need concerning “decision memos” – written addresses of a problem that propose how and what solutions should be taken. He says that before these memos reach his desk, they currently undergo numerous checkpoints where too many offices “chime in”, resulting in an unnecessarily lengthy route.
Writing with the Council on Foreign Relations, Elliot Abrams delivered an opinion piece about the proposal. He writes that even though reforms are needed in this area, perhaps Trump’s plan is similar to taking a wrecking ball to the department. The platform “Just Security” would agree with this dramatic analogy used to depict a particular perspective of the reorganization proposal. They write that the cuts are “motivated by ideological considerations” that believe the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) has evolved into “a platform for left-wing activists.”
While Rubio has been recorded delivering a statement in the past regarding the DRL as a left-wing supporting platform, let’s refer back to what he said to Weiss during the interview – the administration’s plan to balance factors of the country’s foreign policy is NOT to get rid of anything, but to relocate some things to their respective and specific regions.
One of the major concerns is what this reorganization means for how the department deals with human rights and other humanitarian issues. Federal News Network writes that they believe State is starting to “shift away from placing human rights at the foreground of national interests” in an effort to strictly outline the nation’s priorities.
Rubio has explained that the administration is working to “balance equities” within the issue, meaning that the U.S. will certainly remain involved in what is operationally known as “soft power rule” that deals with things like human rights. The proposal merely works to update the country’s methods of approach to these issues in reference to the “geopolitical reality”, as Rubio calls it. This concept rules that the country continues to maintain its’ relations across the globe, even if it does not fully approve of other governments functions, in order to work and collaborate in a way that serves our country’s geopolitical purpose and national interests.
Rubio provided examples of what this concept looks like in action: U.S. national interest in the Middle East is stability, while our national interest in Central America is migration. The conclusion he draws here is that the U.S. needs to implement foreign policy differently in different regions. So, to address the question about how the country will continue to deal with humanitarian issues, “There are some issues in the world that matter more than others for our national interest perspective.” This doesn’t mean that the government ceases to care about these dire issues. To put it simply, Rubio states that the country needs to establish priorities in order to centralize “critical long-term challenges to the national interest”. Furthermore, the power and resources belonging to the U.S. “have never been infinite” so, the U.S. needs to maturely prioritize.
However, “Just Security” and other critics believe this prioritization will prove dangerous and destruction to the operation of our federal government if not done properly. The largest proposed form of action in the initiative is to merge USAID with State to “align development assistance with U.S. Foreign Policy goals. CSIS presents an outline of considerations for risk and management success that might help to ensure this reorganization is executed effectively. To fulfill the following considerations, they recommend that the administration analyzes the precedent established by other Western democracies, as they have already worked to combine agencies into their foreign ministries.
- Learn from U.S. Allies
- Denmark merged their Danish International Development Agency with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the 1990s. This was done with successful designing, levels of efficiency and flexibility within each relevant agency.
- Australia merged their aid agency with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to address their trade and security obstacles in 2013. Contrast to Denmark, this did not succeed well as the country experienced loss of expertise, the deterioration of the management system, and a severe lack of strategic direction.
- Canada did the same thing in 2013. Despite the increase in operational efficiency, they did confront concerns with long-term development strategy.
- The United Kingdom merged their Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 2020. It also didn’t work as cleanly on behalf of a lack of consultation, preparation and clear discretion. This resulted in large staff losses, budget cuts, etc.
- Define What a “Successful Merger” Looks Like
- CSIS recommends that, in definition, this should require detailed planning in advance. This will work to ensure that U.S. foreign aid will remain “effective, impactful and aligned with national interests”, as Rubio stated is the overall priority.
- This outline consults three “models of merger”: consolidation, disbursal and take-over.
- This might look like State absorbing USAID, thoroughly distributing responsibilities and funds from USAID, and maintain “separate but affiliated agency with ‘dual-hatted’ leadership.”
- Adopt a “Whole-of-Government” Approach to Foreign Affairs
- CSIS identifies the current fragmentation of U.S. Foreign Assistance for policy, where a minimum of 20 agencies are all involved. Reform might be tricky since USAID has operated as an independent and isolated agency. So, a “Whole-of-Government” approach would work to centralize State structure by establishing policy and budget allocations for foreign assistance spanning across involved agencies.
- The other considerations are as follows…
- Evaluate Purpose, Scope and Placement of Humanitarian, Health, Development and Functions
- Prioritize Financing Tools Beyond Grants
- Prioritize Transparency and Accountability
- Consider Innovative Modalities to Deliver Foreign Assistance Effectively
*You can read CSIS considerations in full at the article link listed at the end*
What do you think? Is this initiative to reorganize the U.S. Department of State too much to take on for the Trump administration? Is this a problem that will never be finalized on behalf of our rotational terms for presidents? Do you agree with critics that say this proposal will undermine the country’s work concerning human rights, human trafficking, etc.? Or do you disagree? Have other Western democracies made the right move to consolidate agencies into their foreign ministries? Is the U.S. capable of successfully achieving what few other countries have achieved? That is for you to determine for yourself.
RESEARCH
Council on Foreign Relations
State Department
History of the U.S. Department of State
Federal News Network
Just Security
CSIS
Axios