Claims of U.S. embassy closures in Africa dismissed as Rubio announces reform blueprint
Rumors about the United States closing multiple embassies in Africa have been refuted
Senator Marco Rubio is leading a reform plan to streamline and modernize U.S. diplomatic engagement
The goal is to align the State Department's structure with the administration's broader objectives and improve efficiency
Rumors that the United States planned to shut down multiple embassies across Africa have been refuted following the unveiling of a sweeping State Department reform plan led by Secretary of State, Senator Marco Rubio.
The initiative, presented as a long-overdue restructuring effort, aims to streamline operations and modernize U.S. diplomatic engagement—particularly in strategically important regions like Africa.
In a statement on Tuesday, Rubio emphasized that the changes are designed to enhance, not diminish, the country's global presence.
' Today is the day. Under @POTUS' leadership and at my direction, we are reversing decades of bloat and bureaucracy at the State Department. These sweeping changes will empower our talented diplomats to put America and Americans first,' he wrote on X.
According to CNN, the first phase of the overhaul includes the elimination of 132 domestic offices, the reduction of around 700 positions in Washington, D.C., and the closure of several offices focused on war crimes and global conflict.
A senior State Department official described the current structure as 'bloated,' arguing that it has had a ' deleterious effect on foreign policy and the relevance of the Department. '
The clarification comes after a leaked memo claimed that the Trump administration was planning to shut down 10 embassies and 17 consulates across Africa as part of broader cost-cutting measures.
The memo triggered widespread concern among diplomats and foreign policy experts, particularly following earlier moves to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
No embassy closures reported
While the sweeping reforms will impact a record number of employees within the U.S. State Department, officials have made it clear that no overseas missions are being shut down at this time.
In response to growing speculation, an internal FAQ memo emphasized that ' no embassy, consulate, or overseas post closures have been made at this time.'
A fact sheet obtained by CNN noted that, as part of the reform plan, Under Secretaries are required to submit strategies to reduce staff in domestic offices by 15 percent—aligning with the President's Workforce Optimization Initiative.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau, in a memo to employees, outlined that the department's leadership expects these restructuring plans within 30 days, with full implementation scheduled for July 1.
The overall goal, a senior official explained, is to align the department's structure with the administration's broader objectives and improve efficiency.
According to the internal documents, the number of offices at State Department headquarters will be reduced from 734 to 602—a 22 percent cut.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Social Security is 90. Can It Be Saved for Future Generations?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. August 14 marks Social Security's 90th anniversary - an achievement underscored by both its longevity and the scale of its impact. Social Security was created during the Great Depression to provide financial security for Americans. Signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 14 1935, as part of the New Deal, it established a federal safety net funded through payroll taxes. It initially offered retirement benefits for workers aged 65 and older, with later expansions adding disability insurance and survivor benefits. The program's goal was to reduce poverty among the elderly and stabilize the economy by ensuring a basic income. More than 73 million Americans now receive benefits from the program, making it one of the most significant pillars of the nation's social safety net. But its future is far from secure. According to the latest report from the Social Security Trustees, the program's two trust funds - the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds - are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would be funded solely through incoming payroll taxes, triggering an automatic cut of around 21 percent unless Congress acts. This is not the first time Social Security has faced a funding cliff. In the early 1980s, the trust funds were similarly close to depletion. Lawmakers responded with reforms that included faster payroll tax increases, a gradual rise in the retirement age, and taxation of some Social Security benefits. Those measures extended the program's life, but four decades later, a new crisis looms. Today, as the crunch point sits less than a decade away, three distinct approaches have been tabled by lawmakers. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty The Fair Share Act Introduced by Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Brendan Boyle, the Fair Share Act is aimed at shoring up Social Security and Medicare by targeting the highest earners. The bill would require taxpayers with incomes over $400,000 to pay Social Security taxes on all wage, self-employment, and investment income above that threshold. Under the current system, most taxpayers pay Social Security taxes on all their income - but because of the $160,200 wage cap, wealthier Americans stop contributing once they pass that amount in earnings. "This legislation would significantly extend Social Security solvency and would extend Medicare solvency by an estimated 20 years," Whitehouse and Boyle said. Tax attorney Nik Agharkar, owner and managing member of Crowne Point Tax, called the Fair Share Act "the clearest path to achieving long-term solvency" of the three options, noting that it could fund the program for 75 years. "Since the proposals made in the Fair Share Act increase taxes on our highest earners, which reverses decades of erosion to our payroll tax bases, while leaving middle- and lower-income workers untouched, it would likely be considered the most 'fair,' but certainly high-earners would disagree," Agharkar told Newsweek. A New Investment Fund A bipartisan offering comes from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine. Their plan would create an additional investment fund separate from the existing trust funds. Unlike Social Security's current assets - which are invested exclusively in special-issued U.S. government bonds - the new fund would diversify into stocks, bonds, and other investments to secure higher returns. The proposal envisions an up-front $1.5 trillion investment to give the fund 75 years to grow. During that time, the Treasury would temporarily provide the cash needed, to be repaid once the new fund matures and begins supplementing payroll tax revenue. "There is a nationwide appetite to implement a bipartisan, commonsense plan like ours," Cassidy and Kaine wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. "Waiting until the Social Security Trust Fund is on the eve of crisis would have difficult and preventable consequences. Congress should seize the moment." Michael Montgomery, a political scientist at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, said this approach could represent the political middle ground. "Because it neither takes from future beneficiaries - something Democrats will oppose - nor requires high earners to contribute more - something Republicans will oppose - Cassidy-Kaine may be 'just right' for addressing Social Security and Medicare funding if our profoundly-divided Congress has the will to act," Montgomery told Newsweek. Raising the Retirement Age Another idea comes from the Republican Study Committee, which in March 2024 proposed "modest adjustments" to the retirement age for future retirees to reflect rising life expectancy. While not an official administration policy, the group includes 170 GOP lawmakers, among them allies of President Donald Trump. The committee said current seniors and those near retirement would not be affected. But analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that raising the age to 69 - up from the current 67 - could cut lifetime benefits by up to 13 percent for anyone born after 1971. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has said it would only close 35 percent of the funding gap, meaning that if implemented, it would need to be used in tandem with other policies to make a meaningful impact. Political "Goldilocks" Michael Montgomery framed the three proposals as a "political 'Goldilocks' scenario," and that political realities remain a significant barrier in a "deeply divided Congress." The Fair Share Act's reliance on higher taxes for the wealthy could likely face stiff resistance from Republicans, while the investment fund requires a massive one-time outlay that could be politically unpalatable in Congress. Raising the retirement age, while less costly in budget terms, could be politically toxic given its impact on working-class Americans. Nik Agharkar cautioned that none of the options are ideal. "We should do more to get Congress to increase spending on Social Security through budget negotiations," he said, warning that political gridlock could push the issue to the brink. How Do Americans Feel? Social Security is often referred to as the "third rail" of American politics due to its enduring popularity. So it comes as no surprise that Americans want a say in how to fix the funding crisis. A July 2025 survey from The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups, shows that the most popular solution, backed by 50 percent of respondents, is eliminating the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes, like in the Sheldon-Whitehouse proposal. Other favored options include creating a fast-track process for Congress to vote on Social Security legislation (38 percent), increasing the payroll tax rate (31 percent), and applying the 6.2 percent tax to investment income for high earners (29 percent). More drastic or market-linked proposals received far less support: only 19 percent backed investing payroll taxes in stocks or other assets, 18 percent supported raising the retirement age to 70, and just 1 percent favored reducing cost-of-living adjustments.
USA Today
43 minutes ago
- USA Today
Mexico, under pressure from Trump, sends 26 cartel members to US
MEXICO CITY, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Mexico sent more than two dozen suspected cartel members to the U.S. on Tuesday, amid rising pressure from President Donald Trump on Mexico to dismantle the country's powerful drug organizations. Authorities shipped 26 prisoners wanted in the U.S. for ties to drug-trafficking groups, Mexico's attorney general's office and security ministry said in a joint statement. Mexico said the U.S. Department of Justice had requested their extradition and that it would not seek the death penalty for the accused cartel members. The transfer is the second of its kind this year. In February, Mexican authorities sent 29 alleged cartel leaders to the U.S., sparking a debate about the political and legal grounds for such a move. More: State Department updates Mexico travel advisory for Americans That Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum permitted yet another large-scale extradition of Mexican nationals underscores the balancing act she faces as she seeks to appease Trump while also avoiding unilateral U.S. military action in Mexico. In a statement, the U.S. Embassy said among those extradited were key figures in the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and the Sinaloa Cartel, which are Mexico's two dominant organized crime groups. 'This transfer is yet another example of what is possible when two governments unite against violence and impunity," U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson said in a statement. "These fugitives will now face justice in American courts, and the citizens of both our nations will be safer.' More: Mexican President rules out Trump's reported military plan against Mexico's drug cartels Trump has tied tariffs on Mexico to the deadly fentanyl trade, claiming the country hasn't tackled drug cartels aggressively enough. Last week, he directed the Pentagon to prepare operations against Mexican drug gangs that have been designated global terrorist organizations. Sheinbaum has said the U.S. and Mexico are nearing a security agreement to expand cooperation in the fight against cartels. But she has flatly rejected suggestions by the Trump administration that it could carry out unilateral military operations in Mexico. (Additional reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Bengaluru; Editing by Chris Reese, Cassandra Garrison and Lincoln Feast.)
USA Today
43 minutes ago
- USA Today
The key to success at Trump-Putin Alaska summit on Ukraine? Low expectations.
Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation and increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Trump keeps trying to find a way to end the war, but time is not on Ukraine's side. The war in Ukraine is stuck, and has been stuck for years. Despite the media frenzy over the upcoming U.S.-Russia summit in Alaska, there is little reason to expect a breakthrough, barring a dramatic change in the U.S., Russian or Ukrainian positions. When President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin meet on Friday, Aug. 15, observers should keep expectations low. Any progress would be welcome. Since February 2022, the conflict has been a slow, grinding war of attrition in which Russia has gradually seized more and more Ukrainian territory. Russia's military progress dampened its incentives to escalate the conflict, an early source of U.S. concern. For example, in the fall of 2022, the high-water mark for Ukraine on the battlefield, U.S. intelligence estimated that there was a 50% chance Russia would reach for nuclear weapons if its forces in southern Ukraine were facing collapse. Were Russia losing today, the risks for Americans would be higher. Putin's will vs. Trump's way While Russia's progress has limited the risk of escalation, it has also increased Moscow's willingness to continue fighting. Since beginning his second term, Trump has tried to find a way to end the war, but the Kremlin has not shown much willingness to moderate its demands. Putin has insisted on Ukraine renouncing aspirations to join NATO or allow NATO forces on its territory; conceding Russian sovereignty over the four provinces it annexed in 2022; the demilitarization of Ukraine; and the 'denazification' of the country, by which it means dramatic reforms to how it governs itself domestically. Putin has also rejected a temporary ceasefire that doesn't engage on these issues. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The debate over the what to do next often obscures more than it reveals. One hears reference to Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat without defining what those terms mean or what their implications would be. Does Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat mean Kyiv regaining all territory inside its internationally recognized borders? That isn't going to happen. Could Ukraine losing territory but keeping its sovereignty and military ‒ without NATO membership ‒ be portrayed as success? Many security scholars believe that such armed neutrality is the best that can be achieved for Ukraine. Opinion: I was the US ambassador to Ukraine. Here's why I resigned. Don't forget Zelenskyy's intransigence This is where Ukraine's intransigence comes in. Even though Ukrainian public support for continuing the war has cratered, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is using the Ukrainian Constitution as a firewall against concessions. As amended in 2019, it both prohibits the Ukrainian government from ceding any territory and somewhat clumsily commits it to pursue membership in NATO. In rejecting Trump's suggestion that there be land swaps as part of a settlement, Zelenskyy pointed at the constitution's provision against giving up territory, arguing that 'no one will step back from this, nor will anyone be able to.' The Ukrainian president's willingness and ability to end the war probably has less to do with high-minded constitutional principles and more to do with his own political survival. At this point, the war has produced total destruction in Ukraine, the evisceration of its territory, and all the ruinous human and economic costs of the war ‒ but without any U.S. security guarantees. Zelenskyy knows this would be a disastrous legacy, so he has a powerful incentive to obtain something he can portray as a benefit of the war. Gen. Wesley Clark: Trump needs to push Putin hard to end war in Ukraine – now | Opinion The question is whether Kyiv's position on the battlefield can sustain Zelenskyy's intransigence on the political issues, with or without more U.S. support. There are worrying signs that it cannot. Ukraine faces an array of manpower issues along the 600-mile front. Key towns seem to be in jeopardy. Time is not on Ukraine's side. As always, the Europeans are doing everything in their power to keep the United States at the center of the war in Ukraine ‒ and as the central provider of regional security. They called a virtual meeting with Zelenskyy and Trump two days before the Putin summit, and proposed a plan for Ukraine that would involve potential NATO membership in exchange for Kyiv conceding that it lost territory. After the meeting on Aug. 13, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council President António Costa indicated Trump committed that the United States would participate in security guarantees for Ukraine. However, Trump has previously resisted European pleas for U.S. security guarantees to Ukraine, and make no mistake: That is just what NATO membership would be. With two consecutive U.S. administrations revealing that Washington does not perceive an interest in Ukraine worth fighting Russia over, such a commitment would be inherently incredible. In the coming days, avoiding any traps laid by the Europeans, the Ukrainians or congressional hawks is essential. From a U.S. perspective, patience and low expectations are the right course for talks with Russia. Above all, Trump must avoid backing into a reboot of the Biden administration's Ukraine policy, which involved an endless flow of weapons and hoping for a miracle. America's resources for and interests in the war in Ukraine are limited. Trump's policy should reflect that. Justin Logan (@justintlogan) is director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
