State Department begins firing of 1350 workers in Trump's shake-up of diplomatic corps
Photo:
Saul Loeb / AFP
By
Humeyra Pamuk,
Reuters
The State Department has begun firing more than 1350 US-based employees as the administration of President Donald Trump presses ahead with an unprecedented overhaul of its diplomatic corps, a move critics say will undermine US ability to defend and promote US interests abroad.
Friday's layoffs, which affect 1107 civil service and 246 foreign service officers based in the United States, come at a time when Washington is grappling with multiple crises on the world stage: Russia's war in Ukraine, the almost two-year-long Gaza conflict, and the Middle East on edge due to high tension between Israel and Iran.
"The Department is streamlining domestic operations to focus on diplomatic priorities," an internal State Department notice that was sent to the workforce said.
"Headcount reductions have been carefully tailored to affect non-core functions, duplicative or redundant offices, and offices where considerable efficiencies may be found," it added.
The total reduction in the workforce would be almost 3000 including the voluntary departures, according to the notice and a senior State Department official, out of the 18,000 employees based in the United States.
The move was the first step of a restructuring that Trump had sought to ensure US foreign policy was aligned with his "America First" agenda.
Former diplomats and critics said the firing of foreign service officers risked America's ability to counter the growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia.
"President Trump and Secretary of State [Marco] Rubio are once again making America less safe and less secure," Democratic senator Tim Kaine from Virginia said in a statement.
"This is one of the most ridiculous decisions that could possibly be made at a time when China is increasing its diplomatic footprint around the world and establishing an overseas network of military and transportation bases, Russia is continuing its years-long brutal assault of a sovereign country, and the Middle East is careening from crisis to crisis," Kaine said.
Dozens of State Department employees crowded the lobby of the agency's headquarters in Washington holding an impromptu "clap-out" for their colleagues who were fired.
Dozens of people were crying, as they carried their belongings in boxes and hugged and bid farewell to friends and fellow workers.
Outside, dozens of others were lined up continuing to clap and cheer for them with some holding banners that read, "Thank you America's diplomats".
Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen attended the demonstration.
Several offices were set up inside the building for employees who were being laid off to turn in their badges, laptops, telephones and other property owned by the agency.
The offices were marked by posters that read "Transition Day Out Processing".
One counter was labelled an "Outprocessing service center" with small bottles of water placed next to a box of tissue. Inside one office, cardboard boxes were visible.
A five-page "separation checklist" that was sent to workers who were fired on Friday and seen by Reuters tells the employees that they would lose access to the building and their emails at 5pm local time (9am Saturday New Zealand time).
Many members of a State Department office overseeing the US resettlement of Afghans who worked for the US government during the 20-year war have also been terminated as part of the overhaul.
Trump in February ordered Secretary of State Marco Rubio to revamp the foreign service to ensure that the Republican president's foreign policy is "faithfully" implemented.
He had also repeatedly pledged to "clean out the deep state" by firing bureaucrats that he deems disloyal.
The shake-up was part of an unprecedented push by Trump to shrink the federal bureaucracy and cut what he said was wasteful spending of taxpayer money.
His administration dismantled the US Agency for International Aid, Washington's premier aid arm that distributed billions of dollars of assistance worldwide, and folded it under the State Department.
Rubio announced the plans for the State Department shake-up in April, saying the Department in its current form was "bloated, bureaucratic" and was not able to perform its mission "in this new era of great power competition".
He envisioned a structure that he said would give back the power to regional bureaux and embassies and get rid of programmes and offices that did not align with America's core interests.
That vision would see the elimination of the role of top official for civilian security, democracy, and human rights and the closure of some offices that monitored war crimes and conflicts around the world.
The reorganisation had been expected to be largely concluded by 1 July but did not proceed as planned amid ongoing litigation, as the State Department waited for the US Supreme Court to weigh in on the Trump administration's bid to halt a judicial order blocking mass job cuts.
On Tuesday, the court cleared the way for the Trump administration to pursue the job cuts and the sweeping downsizing of numerous agencies.
Since then, The White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Personnel Management had been co-ordinating with federal agencies to ensure their plans comply with the law.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, minister says
By Kirsty Needham , Reuters Australian Minister Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy, front (file photo). Photo: AFP Photo/ DFAT / DION ISAACSON Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said on Sunday, responding to a report that the Pentagon has pressed its ally to clarify what role it would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan. Australia prioritises its sovereignty and "we don't discuss hypotheticals", Conroy said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance but by the government of the day," he said. The Financial Times reported on Saturday that Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary of defence for policy, has been pushing Australian and Japanese defence officials on what they would do in a Taiwan conflict, although the US does not offer a blank cheque guarantee to defend Taiwan. Colby posted on X that the Department of Defence is implementing President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda of restoring deterrence, which includes "urging allies to step up their defense spending and other efforts related to our collective defense". China claims democratically governed Taiwan as its own and has not ruled out the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. Taiwan President Lai Ching-te rejects China's sovereignty claims, saying only Taiwan's people can decide their future. Australia's largest war-fighting exercise with the United States, involving 30,000 troops from 19 countries, opens on Sunday on Sydney Harbour. Conroy said Australia was concerned about China's military build-up of nuclear and conventional forces, and wants a balanced Indo-Pacific region where no country dominates. "China is seeking to secure a military base in the region and we are working very hard to be the primary security partner of choice for the region because we don't think that's a particularly optimal thing for Australia," he said, referring to the Pacific Islands. Security is expected to be on the agenda when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets China's leaders this week. He arrived in Shanghai on Saturday for a six-day visit. The Talisman Sabre exercise will span 6500 km from Australia's Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island to the Coral Sea on Australia's east coast. Conroy said it was possible China's navy would be watching the exercise to collect information, as it had done in the past. The United States is Australia's major security ally. Although Australia does not permit foreign bases, the US military is expanding its rotational presence and fuel stores on Australian bases, which from 2027 will have US Virginia submarines at port in Western Australia. These would play a key role in supporting US forces in any conflict over Taiwan, analysts say. - Reuters
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
Defence Spending Is Like Insurance – How Will NZ Pay The Higher Premiums?
Defence spending is like insurance – you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be. New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government's 2025 Defence Capability Plan, released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That's a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion. New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump's demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2,718 billion in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East. How much 'insurance' a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance. Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations. One involves what economists call 'technology spillovers'. Past innovations developed for military use – such as jet engines, GPS and the internet – often found important civilian applications. The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand's defence plan includes this kind of spending, including between $100 million and 300 million on cybersecurity. On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand's best known example being the ' Think Big ' policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones. Guns and butter In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded – through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It's not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending. Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods. While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing. New Zealand doesn't face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from 'butter to guns'. We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications. New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume. Costs and benefits Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as 'defence' when it could otherwise be classified as 'updated infrastructure'. Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses. There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well. Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence. All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments. Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question. What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done.
Scoop
5 hours ago
- Scoop
K-Defense Day: Pimping For The Arms Dealers
Militarism is catching on across the countries of advanced economies and beyond. The sly, disingenuous term of 'defence' is used in this context, encouraging arms manufacturers, contractors and the entire apparatus of the military-industrial complex to fatten for the cause. The European Union huffs and struts towards higher targets of expenditure that will cull projects for peaceful development in favour of a fatuous rearmament agenda. Member countries of the NATO alliance, lent on by the administration of President Donald Trump, are doing the same. The countries of the Middle East continue to add to the numbers, with warring Israel seeing a 65% increase in 2024 to US$46.5 billion, the sharpest annual increase since the Six-Day War in 1967. In East Asia, military contractors are also preening themselves in Tokyo and Seoul, pressing the flesh and pursuing contracts. Japan's military spending rose by a gulping 21% in 2024. The amount of US$55.3 billion is the largest since 1952. In Seoul, on the occasion of K-Defense Day on June 8, President Lee Jae-myung made it clear that he did not want South Korea's own defence industry to miss out on all the fun. In a closed-door discussion held at the Grand Hyatt Seoul hotel organised by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lee solemnly promised to 'do my best to push ahead, as long as we don't end up being labelled arms dealers'. This somewhat idiosyncratic caveat is bound to make little difference, given Lee's ambitions to promote the value of South Korea's killing inventory. DAPA, wanting to make the most of its first Defense Industry Day themed 'Remembering the dedication and passion of Korea's Defense Industry', was in a bullish mood to promote Korean military prowess. Some well minted propaganda did the rounds, drawing inspiration on the exploits of Admiral Yi Sun-sin on July 8, 1592, when the turtle ship was committed to the Battle of Sacheon against the Japanese fleet. The turtle ship, in its 'historical significance', symbolised 'Korea's will to protect its territory and its independent technological prowess.' Those in the defence industry had been worried that the new President might give them the cold shoulder on this grand occasion. He had previously attacked the installation of the US Terminal High Altitude Defense system on Korean soil, ostensibly to protect South Korea from North Korean missiles, as needlessly provocative. The militarists need not have worried. All the relevant mandarins were in attendance, including the Minister of National Defense nominee Ahn Gyu-baek and Chairperson of the National Defense Committee, Seong Il-jong. The industry titans were also represented. Numerous awards of merit were also presented. Lee had purportedly told his aides that K-Defense Day, put on the calendar of commemorations by his impeached predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023, would be a good opportunity to 'highlight our support for defence.' According to Korea JoongAng Daily, Lee outlined his various achievements of late to the closed gathering, including attending the G7 summit held last month in Canada. 'A big reason I went was to showcase the strength of our defence industry and to ask them to buy our submarines.' In May, it was revealed that a trio of South Korean firms – Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Aerospace – had made a combined offer to the Canadian armed forces valued between US$14 to 17 billion in submarines, with US$720 million worth of armoured vehicles and artillery systems. It was a good time for the Koreans to strike, given the stated view by newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney that 'the old relationship with the United States based on… tight security and military cooperation is over'. Lee also explained his purpose for seeking an invitation to the latest NATO summit held in The Hague. Despite wanting to avoid accusations of being a grubby arms dealer, the ROK President was clearly placing the ambitions and wallets of arms dealers ahead of the common citizenry. He had become a pimp for arms: 'The biggest reason I wanted to go was to advertise our defence industry and weapons.' Participants at the forum pressed Lee to depart from the view that defence was a matter of procurement and competition between parties rather than a total industry beneficial to the state. The response was suitably patriotic – at least if you are a merchant of death: 'Defence and arms exports are not just a competition between companies; they're a competition between nations. We have to win as 'One Team Korea.'' In public remarks made at the start of the forum, Lee offered the sort of reasoning that launders the military-industrial complex of its stains, concealing its insatiable appetite to stimulate the cause for war. 'I hope the defence industry not only strengthens our security but also becomes one of Korea's future growth engines. The government will continue investing and providing strong support.' In response to 'the rapidly changing security environment', the government would also 'develop state-of-the-art weapon systems using artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned robots and build a healthy business ecosystem that goes beyond the industrial structure centred on big corporations to allow small and medium enterprises and diverse talent to participate.' Militarism, following this seedy rationale, should not just be for the big corporations and arms manufacturers. In the business of killing, the little guys should also be given a chance.
