Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025. Now that Donald Trump’s second term has started, Part 2 of the series has commenced.
Few would argue that the changes in the State Department of the United States under the Trump administration have been dramatic and some of the biggest changes in the last 50 years. However, this is not the first time the State Department has undergone major transformations and it probably will not be the last.
After 9/11, the State Department prioritized counterterrorism efforts, establishing new offices and initiatives to combat global terrorism that included closer collaboration with intelligence agencies and international partners. In 2002, the State Department under President George W. Bush enacted its first climate change policy, with the aim of working to reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by supporting climate change research and fostering international cooperation to address global climate challenges.
However, despite having a history of adjusting to global crises, the current changes—which include budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments—are truly notable in that they are not in response to a new major global threat, yet they could reshape U.S. diplomacy and the global role the U.S. plays for decades to come.
Significant cuts to foreign aid have already been implemented. Recent reports indicate that the State Department has terminated over $1.3 billion in foreign aid contracts—including critical programs for food, water, and medicine in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has seen significant reductions, with 83% of its funding for overseas projects canceled since the start of the Trump administration. These cuts have sparked widespread concern among humanitarian organizations and international partners.
On April 14, Politico reported additional cuts are forthcoming: “The Trump administration is weighing asking Congress to cut the budgets of the State Department and USAID by nearly half as it continues its effort to dramatically curtail government spending, according to a document obtained by POLITICO.” Politico went on to say “The proposal for fiscal 2026 would allocate $28.4 billion to State and USAID, down from $54.4 billion in the enacted fiscal 2025 budget. That includes cuts demanded by the White House Office of Management and Budget. It also accounts for the dismantling of USAID; its remaining programs are in the process of being subsumed by the State Department.”
On April 22, Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the following statement, regarding a comprehensive reorganization of the State Department:
“Region-specific functions will be consolidated to increase functionality, redundant offices will be removed, and non-statutory programs that are misaligned with America’s core national interests will cease to exist.”
Rubio’s announcement was met with criticism by many Democrats, including:
Rep. Gregory W. Meeks (New York), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the “proposed reorganization of the State Department, developed with zero consultation with Congress, raises significant concerns about the future of American diplomacy, foreign policy, and global leadership. The vital work left on Secretary Rubio’s cutting-room floor represents significant pillars of our foreign policy long supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, including former Senator Rubio—not ‘radical ideologies’ as he now claims.”
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations, which is responsible for drafting the State Department budget, also mentioned Rubio’s history of support for multilateral foreign policy.
A significant part of Secretary Rubio's sweeping reorganization of the State Department includes significant workforce reductions and structural changes. His plan aims to eliminate approximately 700 Washington-based positions for Foreign Service and Civil Service employees, with department leaders given 30 days to analyze and implement the reductions. Additionally, undersecretaries have been instructed to reduce personnel by 15%, which could lead to thousands of additional job cuts.
Many of the enacted and proposed changes come directly from the Project 2025 playbook, reforms that critics argue will weaken America’s global influence rather than strengthen our national interests.
Despite President Trump stating in the presidential debate on September 10, 2024, that "I have nothing to do with Project 2025. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it purposely. I’m not going to read it." And despite attributing Project 2025 to people who "came up with some ideas, I guess, some good, some bad," and emphasizing that it made no difference to him, Project 2025 recommendations are being implemented in departments throughout the federal government at a remarkably fast pace.
One of the many examples from Project 2025: The cutting of foreign aid is discussed at length in Project 2025’s section related to the Agency for International Development (USAID), where it specifically critiques USAID's programs for inefficiency and dependence on large awards to international organizations and contractors. It goes on to suggest scaling back USAID's global footprint and returning to pre-pandemic budget levels, which is exactly what has been implemented. To date, less than 100 days into Trump’s second term, the administration has already cut over $60 billion in foreign aid, which includes terminating more than 90% of USAID's foreign aid contracts. These cuts have affected thousands of programs worldwide, including humanitarian aid, food assistance, and health initiatives. For example, over $1.3 billion in aid was recently slashed, impacting countries like Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria.
The changes in the State Department go well beyond foreign aid. A dramatic shift has occurred as the State Department shifts its focus away from climate policies that are perceived by the administration as weakening U.S. interests by not emphasizing American energy dominance. This adaptation of State Department policy also comes directly from Project 2025. This is primarily discussed in sections related to energy and environmental policy, in which Project 2025 called for prioritizing American energy independence and economic interests over global climate initiatives.
And of course, the administration has pointed with pride to eliminating diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs and offices within the State Department. This aligns with broader government-wide directives for all departments of the federal government. Project 2025 delves deeply into the elimination of DEIA in many sections but Section 6 is the section focused specifically on the Department of State. This section critiques DEIA programs as being inconsistent with a merit-based system and suggests their removal to align with the administration's broader goals of streamlining government operations and focusing on performance and merit.
For example, the administration's focus on reducing what is called “soft power initiatives”—like promoting democracy and human rights—has been criticized for potentially giving geopolitical rivals like China an advantage. The closing of numerous U.S. diplomatic missions, particularly in Africa and Europe, has sparked fears of a diminished U.S. presence in key regions.
Some critics also worry that the emphasis on transactional agreements and immediate U.S. interests might undermine long-term diplomatic relationships. Others have expressed concerns about the dismantling of USAID and the elimination of programs that tackle global challenges like drug trafficking and health crises.
Published on the current Department of State website, Rubio proudly states: “President Trump has given me a clear direction to place our core national interest as the guiding mission of American foreign policy. Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions:
- Does it make America safer?
- Does it make America stronger?
- Does it make America more prosperous?”
Historians often view diplomacy as an intricate art that requires the balancing of power, negotiations, and relationships between nations; while most agree that Trump's approach to foreign policy is unconventional and transactional, emphasizing deal-making and direct engagement over traditional diplomatic norms. His reliance on unilateral diplomacy and skepticism toward multilateral agreements marks a shift from previous administrations. America's ability to engage effectively on the world stage will be dramatically impacted for decades to come.
The debate over the efficacy of changes made to State Department policy under the Trump Administration is likely to go on for years if not decades. While some of the policy changes are easily measurable like immigration numbers or the dollar amount of foreign aid allocations, many of the changes involve moral and ethical shifts—like changes in diplomatic tone, human rights advocacy, or the prioritization of certain values. These more intangible changes are harder to measure but are of equal if not greater importance. The U.S. influence in the world, based on long-term trust and consistency of policy, will never show up in data but is deeply significant.
Only time will tell whether the reforms within the Department of State will make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous or if it will set back the U.S. for years by undermining long-term alliances and stability.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Trump’s ‘Just for Fun’ War Talk Shows a Dangerous Trivialization