Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump’s State Department Overhaul: Project 2025’s Influence on U.S. Diplomacy

Trump’s State Department Overhaul: Project 2025’s Influence on U.S. Diplomacy

Business people standing together in front of a world globe.

Getty Images, Abu Hanifah

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.

The Trump administration is already implementing and planning historic changes to the U.S. Department of State, many of which were influenced by Project 2025. Its chapter on the State Department, authored by Kiron K. Skinner, outlines a vision for restructuring the agency to better align with the president’s foreign policy agenda—assuming a Republican victory in the 2024 election. These proposed reforms are already shaping discussions on the future of U.S. diplomacy.


The U.S. Department of State is responsible for managing foreign affairs and diplomacy, representing the nation in international relations, negotiating treaties, issuing passports and visas, and promoting global stability. Thus, any changes greatly impact the role of the United States in all international relationships.

Despite our flaws, I believe in American exceptionalism and worry that a less active State Department will weaken it. American exceptionalism is not just about military strength—it is rooted in ideals like democracy, human rights, and innovation. The State Department plays a vital role in promoting these values worldwide. If the U.S. disengages, it risks losing its standing as a moral and democratic leader.

The chapter on the State Department in Project 2025 called for many fundamental changes, including:

  • Reforming the Bureaucracy: The chapter argues that the State Department has historically resisted conservative administrations due to a workforce predisposed to disagree with their policies. It calls for reshaping the department into a more streamlined diplomatic entity that fully serves the president’s agenda.
  • Increasing Political Appointees: The proposal suggests appointing more political officials to key positions to ensure alignment with the administration’s priorities.
  • Restructuring Diplomatic Efforts: The chapter emphasizes the need for a diplomatic machine focused on national interests as defined by the elected president.
  • Policy Implementation: The chapter stresses that the State Department should be instrumental in communicating and executing the president’s foreign policy vision.

In the first 100 days, the Trump administration has already implemented several recommendations from Project 2025 regarding the State Department. Significant changes include budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments.

The most controversial move has been an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision aligns with Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and “deradicalize” USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticizes USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid has become a “massive and open-ended global entitlement program,” benefiting left-leaning organizations.

Expect even more sweeping changes to the State Department in the near future, specifically aligned with Project 2025. On April 20, CNBC reported that it had obtained a draft executive order outlining additional reforms that go far beyond those already implemented.

Key provisions in the draft order include:

  • Eliminating all “non-essential” embassies and consulates in Sub-Saharan Africa while consolidating regional bureaus worldwide.
  • Terminating offices and positions focused on environmentalism, women’s issues, democracy, human rights, migration, and criminal justice.
  • Drastically reducing America’s diplomatic presence in Canada. Under the order, State Department operations in Canada would be reassigned to a significantly reduced team within Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s office, designated as the North American Affairs Office.

Most of the proposed State Department restructuring would be carried out through executive orders issued by the president and directives from the secretary of state. However, budget cuts, personnel reductions, and major reorganizations that require funding reallocations would likely need congressional approval.

It remains unclear whether the administration can implement many of these structural changes unilaterally or if legislative action would be required to modify the department's mandate.

These proposals are sparking intense debate among policymakers, diplomats, and foreign policy experts.

The proposed changes to the State Department are critical because they directly impact how the U.S. exercises power, diplomacy, and global leadership. As the leader of the free world, the U.S. depends on a strong diplomatic corps to advance its interests, defend democracy, and shape international policies.

Reducing bureaucracy could enhance efficiency, allowing diplomats to focus on key priorities such as national security and great power competition. However, eliminating offices dedicated to human rights, war crimes, and global conflict resolution could weaken America’s moral authority and soft power—two essential pillars of its global influence.

Ultimately, these reforms signal a shift in how the U.S. defines leadership: Will it emphasize strategic, security-driven diplomacy, or maintain its broad influence through values-based foreign policy? The outcome will shape America’s global role for years to come and is likely to be fiercely debated in the months ahead.

In the 1980s, Republican President Ronald Reagan often emphasized the responsibility of the U.S. as a moral and ideological leader, promoting democracy and freedom worldwide. The philosophy is summed up in this famous quote:

"America is a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere.”

The world is watching the Trump administration to see if his America First approach abandons our role as an ideological leader or whether foreign policy will become merely based on transactional relationships. President Trump has often downplayed human rights concerns in favor of pragmatic deals—such as his willingness to engage with authoritarian leaders, like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, without emphasizing democratic values. His foreign policy is more about economic and strategic interests than projecting the U.S. as a moral force.

This dramatic shift will fuel debates in the next four years and beyond about whether Trump's approach will set back generations as a global influence in shaping a values-based international order.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Protestors holding signs at a rally in Chicago against ICE.

Demonstrators protest the agenda of the Trump administration with a march through downtown on September 30, 2025 in Chicago, Illinois.

Getty Image, Scott Olson

Stop the War Declared on U.S. Informal Workers

“Operation Midway Blitz,” the Chicago area efforts by Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE), intentionally and actively terrorizing Chicagoans, is targeting informal workers, including street vendors and day laborers.

It is a scenario played out across the country, including cities in New York, Oregon, Colorado, Iowa, and Texas.

Keep ReadingShow less
A portrait of John Adams.

John Adams warned that without virtue, republics collapse. Today, billionaire spending and unchecked wealth test whether America can place the common good above private gain.

John Adams Warned Us: A Republic Without Virtue Cannot Survive

John Adams understood a truth that feels even sharper today: a republic cannot endure without virtue. Writing to Mercy Otis Warren in April 1776, he warned that public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without [private virtue], and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics.” For Adams, liberty would not be preserved by clever constitutions alone. It depended on citizens who could restrain their selfish impulses for the sake of the common good.

That insight has lost none of its force. Some people do restrain themselves. They accumulate enough to live well and then turn to service, family, or community. Others never stop. Given the chance, they gather wealth and power without limit. Left unchecked, selfishness concentrates material and social resources in the hands of a few, leaving many behind and eroding the sense of shared citizenship on which democracy depends.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protest sign, We the people.
Protests have been sparked across the country over the last few weeks.
Gene Gallin on Unsplash

Why Constitution Day Should Spark a Movement for a New Convention in 2037

Sept. 17 marked Constitution Day, grounded in a federal law commemorating the signing of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787. As explained by the courts of Maryland, “By law, all educational institutions receiving federal funding must observe Constitution Day. It is an opportunity to celebrate and discuss our Constitution and system of government.”

This week also marked the release of an important new book by the historian Jill Lepore: “We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution” (as reviewed in the New York Times in a public link). Here’s an overview of her conclusions from the publisher:

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

Political violence has deep roots in American history. From 1968 to today, Jeanne Sheehan Zaino explore why violence remains a force for change in U.S. society.

Getty Images, B.S.P.I.

America’s Long History of Political Violence—and Why We Can’t Ignore It Now

In 1968, amid riots and assassinations, a magazine asked leading intellectuals why America was so violent. Among the responses was one that stood out—H. Rap Brown’s now-infamous line: “Violence is as American as cherry pie.”

Anthropologist Clifford Geertz dismissed the phrase as a cliché. But sociologist St. Clair Drake took it seriously. “However repulsive and shocking,” Drake wrote, Brown was “telling it like it is.” Americans, he said, must face the fact that their society is, by global standards, a very violent one.

Keep ReadingShow less