In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

• Foreign Aid Cuts Intensified: By late 2025, the administration terminated over $1.3 billion in foreign aid contracts, including programs for food, water, and medicine in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. USAID funding was reduced by 83%, effectively dismantling most overseas projects.
• Budget Reduction Plans for FY2026: A proposal circulated in April 2025 sought to cut State Department and USAID budgets nearly in half, from $54.4 billion in FY2025 to $28.4 billion in FY2026. To put this into perspective, the proposed budget for these departments is less than 4% of the projected $750 billion defense budget for FY2026. This comparison highlights the significant fiscal trade-offs and raises questions about the prioritization of diplomatic versus military spending.
• Personnel and Leadership Changes: Several architects of Project 2025, including Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, and Tom Homan, were appointed to senior roles within the administration, reinforcing the push to reshape the State Department’s mission and priorities. Russell Vought, previously the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, was a key proponent of cutting government spending and redirecting resources to align with conservative values. Stephen Miller, known for his hardline stance on immigration policy and his influence on travel bans, focuses on national security. Tom Homan, a former acting director of ICE known for aggressive immigration enforcement practices, aligns with the administration's prioritization of enforcement over diplomacy. These appointments reflect a strategic consolidation of influence, signaling a shift toward a more security-driven, conservative policy framework within the State Department.
• Policy Realignment Beyond Diplomacy: The administration moved to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and scrub terms such as gender identity, reproductive rights, and racial equity from federal regulations. These changes directly affect State Department programming and reporting.
• Embassy and Consulate Closures: While the draft order I referenced in April outlined closures in Sub-Saharan Africa, subsequent reporting indicates that consolidation of regional bureaus is underway, though the full scope of closures remains contested in Congress.
• Canada Operations: The plan to reduce America’s diplomatic presence in Canada has not yet been fully implemented, but restructuring toward a North American Affairs Office under Secretary Rubio remains under consideration.

Political and Diplomatic Impact

The political and diplomatic consequences of these sweeping changes have not gone unnoticed. Many of the proposed budget cuts and embassy closures require congressional approval. While executive orders have advanced some restructuring, pushback from Congress and the courts has slowed implementation through legal challenges and legislative resistance.

Humanitarian groups have voiced strong opposition. For example, Clara Owens, Executive Director of Global Aid Frontline, expressed deep concern regarding these changes. "The cuts to foreign aid will not just weaken U.S. influence; they will have real-world consequences for millions of vulnerable people," she warned. Several international partners and NGOs echo her sentiments, warning that the elimination of offices focused on human rights, women’s issues, and democracy promotion could significantly weaken U.S. soft power.

The administration’s emphasis has clearly shifted toward security-driven diplomacy and great power competition, while reducing America’s role in values-based foreign policy. This represents one of the most dramatic redefinitions of U.S. diplomacy in decades. Historically, such shifts can be compared to post-Vietnam retrenchment or post-Iraq War recalibrations, in which the U.S. similarly reevaluated its foreign policy priorities to focus on more immediate strategic interests.

Looking Ahead

Since my May 2025 column, the administration has deepened budget cuts, accelerated terminations of foreign aid, and begun restructuring embassies and bureaus, all in line with Project 2025. While some proposals remain stalled in Congress, the overall trajectory points toward a leaner, security-focused State Department with diminished emphasis on humanitarian and values-driven diplomacy.

The world is watching to see whether Trump’s “America First” approach abandons the nation’s role as an ideological leader or reduces foreign policy to transactional relationships. The president 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 prioritizes economic and strategic interests over projecting the U.S. as a moral force.

This dramatic shift will fuel debate in the years ahead about whether Trump’s approach will set back generations of U.S. influence in shaping a values-based international order.

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