US State Department says planned layoffs to begin soon

[Along Came Jones]

The move is the first step of a restructuring that Trump has sought to ensure U.S. foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. It will likely result in hundreds of job cuts including members of the elite foreign service who advocate for U.S. interests in the face of growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. -- Humeyra Pamuk, Reuters, 7/10/2025

Notices may be arriving as early as this morning, Friday, 11 July.

The layoffs are part of a reorganization plan unveiled in May by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called his department “bloated” and stifled by bureaucracy. Mr. Rubio said the changes would better align it with core American values and root out pockets of “radical political ideology.”

The union that represents trained diplomats who rotate overseas, called Foreign Service officers, expects about 700 of those based in the United States to lose their jobs. A larger number of civil service workers, who work mostly in Washington, are also expected to be fired, in what is officially known as reduction-in-force actions.

In all, the department’s U.S.-based work force of about 18,000 people will shrink by about 15 percent. Department officials said that more than half of that proportion would be made up of voluntary departures, including workers who have accepted the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” offer. -- Michael Crowley, New York Times, 7/10/2025 (Paywall)

Do more with less. Yeah. Right. I've seen first hand how well that works out. In so many areas this is like pouring dilation solution into the eyes of the state. You can still see but can't quite focus clearly on fine details.

 

[gman]

So about 2,700 people will be let go or retired. Corporate industry does it all the time, especially as new technology makes it more cost efficient. But the question here is who are these people affected and will their departure make it more cost efficient or will their departure cause a greater backlog of doing business ultimately adversely affecting their primary role?

 

[Helix]

Let's learn about what important departments do the hard way. It may be a dumb way to do it, but damn it, it's our dumb way.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually from what I’ve read.

Rubio is doing it the right was as part of an organized review and restructuring.

Which is the way RIFs are supposed to work.

We’ll get more information about results soon.

WW

 

[OrphanSlug]

The callous attitude of FAFO, err... the Trump Administration management style, rages on.

But ultimately Trump and his band of administration morons will never again get to complain about global trade, who has regional or global influence, how to engage nations in dispute or conflict, which nation aligns to whatever other nations, basic international discourse on issues impacting us all, or even human rights.

This is not about "trimming fat" or removing "layers of bureaucracy" as Rubio put it, this is purely about who aligns to Trump and more importantly who does not. 15% of staff is really the group that did not make the loyalty test standards.

 

[j brown's body]

We have more of this to look forward to.

Decapitating the National Security Council leads to foreign policy chaos​

Blunders on Ukraine and Venezuela point to dysfunction caused by Trump’s hollowing out of the NSC.

Loading…

wapo.st

 

[Roadvirus]

The move is the first step of a restructuring that Trump has sought to ensure U.S. foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. It will likely result in hundreds of job cuts including members of the elite foreign service who advocate for U.S. interests in the face of growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. -- Humeyra Pamuk, Reuters, 7/10/2025

Notices may be arriving as early as this morning, Friday, 11 July.

The layoffs are part of a reorganization plan unveiled in May by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called his department “bloated” and stifled by bureaucracy. Mr. Rubio said the changes would better align it with core American values and root out pockets of “radical political ideology.”

The union that represents trained diplomats who rotate overseas, called Foreign Service officers, expects about 700 of those based in the United States to lose their jobs. A larger number of civil service workers, who work mostly in Washington, are also expected to be fired, in what is officially known as reduction-in-force actions.

In all, the department’s U.S.-based work force of about 18,000 people will shrink by about 15 percent. Department officials said that more than half of that proportion would be made up of voluntary departures, including workers who have accepted the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” offer. -- Michael Crowley, New York Times, 7/10/2025 (Paywall)

Do more with less. Yeah. Right. I've seen first hand how well that works out. In so many areas this is like pouring dilation solution into the eyes of the state. You can still see but can't quite focus clearly on fine details.

"Listen up, everyone! Get ready for drunken, reckless job-cutting where long-term consequences will not be considered. Stay ready to be rehired when we find out that we screwed the pooch something awful!"

 

[gman]

"Listen up, everyone! Get ready for drunken, reckless job-cutting where long-term consequences will not be considered. Stay ready to be rehired when we find out that we screwed the pooch something awful!"

Any rehiring will be done slowly and discreetly so as not to make the emporer look bad.

 

[Roadvirus]

Any rehiring will be done slowly and discreetly so as not to make the emporer look bad.

It won't be done quiet. The NWS rehiring wasn't.

 

[gman]

It won't be done quiet. The NWS rehiring wasn't.

We’ll just have to wait and see.

 

[Girlpower]

The move is the first step of a restructuring that Trump has sought to ensure U.S. foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. It will likely result in hundreds of job cuts including members of the elite foreign service who advocate for U.S. interests in the face of growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. -- Humeyra Pamuk, Reuters, 7/10/2025

Notices may be arriving as early as this morning, Friday, 11 July.

The layoffs are part of a reorganization plan unveiled in May by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called his department “bloated” and stifled by bureaucracy. Mr. Rubio said the changes would better align it with core American values and root out pockets of “radical political ideology.”

The union that represents trained diplomats who rotate overseas, called Foreign Service officers, expects about 700 of those based in the United States to lose their jobs. A larger number of civil service workers, who work mostly in Washington, are also expected to be fired, in what is officially known as reduction-in-force actions.

In all, the department’s U.S.-based work force of about 18,000 people will shrink by about 15 percent. Department officials said that more than half of that proportion would be made up of voluntary departures, including workers who have accepted the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” offer. -- Michael Crowley, New York Times, 7/10/2025 (Paywall)

Do more with less. Yeah. Right. I've seen first hand how well that works out. In so many areas this is like pouring dilation solution into the eyes of the state. You can still see but can't quite focus clearly on fine details.

Boy imagine how great they would run if they hired 10 million more people.

 

[Logophile]

Boy imagine how great they would run if they hired 10 million more people.

These "foreign liaisons" have been living high off the hog for a long time. Not only do they have cushy jobs, but they're really not jobs. Everybody wants to be in their position. Seriously, it's an aspiration. We can't afford these folks hob knobbing, which is what most of them do, or find ways to siphon off even more taxpayer money for pet projects. Back before the internet and polarization, these people had a function, but they don't anymore. And I'm tired of paying pensions to people milking the system

 

[jaypatriot]

The move is the first step of a restructuring that Trump has sought to ensure U.S. foreign policy is aligned with his "America First" agenda. It will likely result in hundreds of job cuts including members of the elite foreign service who advocate for U.S. interests in the face of growing assertiveness from adversaries such as China and Russia. -- Humeyra Pamuk, Reuters, 7/10/2025

Notices may be arriving as early as this morning, Friday, 11 July.

The layoffs are part of a reorganization plan unveiled in May by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called his department “bloated” and stifled by bureaucracy. Mr. Rubio said the changes would better align it with core American values and root out pockets of “radical political ideology.”

The union that represents trained diplomats who rotate overseas, called Foreign Service officers, expects about 700 of those based in the United States to lose their jobs. A larger number of civil service workers, who work mostly in Washington, are also expected to be fired, in what is officially known as reduction-in-force actions.

In all, the department’s U.S.-based work force of about 18,000 people will shrink by about 15 percent. Department officials said that more than half of that proportion would be made up of voluntary departures, including workers who have accepted the Trump administration’s “deferred resignation” offer. -- Michael Crowley, New York Times, 7/10/2025 (Paywall)

Do more with less. Yeah. Right. I've seen first hand how well that works out. In so many areas this is like pouring dilation solution into the eyes of the state. You can still see but can't quite focus clearly on fine details.

Government bureaucracies can always do more with less.
Major U.S. corporations are doing that all the time.

 

[gman]

Government bureaucracies can always do more with less.
Major U.S. corporations are doing that all the time.

You’re right, but also more forethought put into it rather than knee jerk reaction.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Government bureaucracies can always do more with less.
Major U.S. corporations are doing that all the time.

The State Department is not a corporation. Corporations do not willingly attempt doing more with less. The attempt frequently leads to employee stress, burnout, and compromised results. The two clear areas justifying a corporate reduction in force are either a decline in demand for their products or services, or updated technology requiring fewer humans producing the products or services.

Rubio claims the reductions are necessary to better align the size, scope, and composition of the foreign service with the foreign policy priorities of the secretary and nation. There is too much overlap and duplication. A centralization or consolidation of functions and responsibilities will take place under a "forthcoming" reorganization. Of course, Rubio's state department does not know how many of those laid off civil and foreign service employees they'll need to efficiently perform the mission, whatever it will be, in this centralization or consolidation of functions and responsibilities.

These are the departments targeted for layoffs: Bureau of Cyberspace and Policy, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Bureau of Energy Resources, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Multilateral Trade Affairs office, Office of Agriculture Policy, and others.

So maybe what this unknown reorganization really means is that the State Department will be doing less with less.

 

[jaypatriot]

The State Department is not a corporation. Corporations do not willingly attempt doing more with less. The attempt frequently leads to employee stress, burnout, and compromised results. The two clear areas justifying a corporate reduction in force are either a decline in demand for their products or services, or updated technology requiring fewer humans producing the products or services.

Rubio claims the reductions are necessary to better align the size, scope, and composition of the foreign service with the foreign policy priorities of the secretary and nation. There is too much overlap and duplication. A centralization or consolidation of functions and responsibilities will take place under a "forthcoming" reorganization. Of course, Rubio's state department does not know how many of those laid off civil and foreign service employees they'll need to efficiently perform the mission, whatever it will be, in this centralization or consolidation of functions and responsibilities.

These are the departments targeted for layoffs: Bureau of Cyberspace and Policy, Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Bureau of Energy Resources, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Multilateral Trade Affairs office, Office of Agriculture Policy, and others.

So maybe what this unknown

This sentence contradicts your claim "Corporations do not willingly attempt doing more with less."
Of course such actions are going to cause stress and financial worry among those affected. It happened to me a few times. It's life in corporate America.
Why should it be any different in federal government organizations. What makes them exempt from cuts in bloated bureaucracies?
And who's decide if such actions are warranted or not?
The opposing party? Or the ones running the bloated bureaucracies?
And how would even be able to determine if what "reorganization really means is that the State Department will be doing less with less.".
What metrics would you be using to validate your assumption?

 

[jaypatriot]

You’re right, but also more forethought put into it rather than knee jerk reaction.

You're right. I was targeted for downsizing. I didn't know how much the mother corporation was willing to keep our development segment afloat.
All I knew was I was going to let go with enough time to secure my employment somewhere else, either in the same corporation or on my own.
Even people affected by the reduction in force have no idea of all the issues associated with getting rid of an expensive department within a corporation.
How do you estimate what a "knee jerk reaction" really is?
All of us are on the outside looking into vast bureaucracies.
How much can the public actually know unless you are part of the decision-making upper management?

 

[gman]

Doge has forced the bureaucracy to do what’s been long overdue and I believe most people would agree with that. However, certainly the way it’s been presented gives the impression of a slash and burn operation or the more grotesque impression of kill them all and let God sort them out. So now the surviving managers have the unenviable task of sorting out even deeper cuts of the first survivors of who lives and who goes. I think in the vernacular it’s called shock therapy.

 

[jaypatriot]

Doge has forced the bureaucracy to do what’s been long overdue and I believe most people would agree with that. However, certainly the way it’s been presented gives the impression of a slash and burn operation or the more grotesque impression of kill them all and let God sort them out. So now the surviving managers have the unenviable task of sorting out even deeper cuts of the first survivors of who lives and who goes. I think in the vernacular it’s called shock therapy.

Wouldn't want to have a cushy government job right now.
I don't have much sympathy for those who have enjoyed comfortable positions in our government without producing anything of importance to justify their retention.
And that is not for me to decide.

 

[Along Came Jones]

This sentence contradicts your claim "Corporations do not willingly attempt doing more with less."

And how would even be able to determine if what "reorganization really means is that the State Department will be doing less with less.".
What metrics would you be using to validate your assumption?

Your quote reduced to make room for my reply.

I do not see the contradiction you apparently see. Nor do I see how your reply, "Of course such actions are going to cause stress and financial worry among those affected." responds to what I wrote, "The attempt frequently leads to employee stress, burnout, and compromised results."

RIF's at the State Department, and within the federal government in general, ought to be different because their missions are different. Corporations reorganize in an attempt to preserve or regain their profit margins for the benefit of stockholders. The State Department's mission is not profit oriented. Its mission is "To protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive."

On 20 January Trump published a document Declaring A National Energy Emergency. A laid off Bureau of Energy Resources employee wondered, if the president were serious about that, he would not force out the government's energy experts. Why would Trump do that across multiple state department bureaus?

Metrics? Each FY the State Department submits a performance plan and a performance report to the President, the Congress, and the public. Biden's and Trump's 5 Goals are identical. While the President may set his foreign policy, Congress approves, restricts, or denies that policy through its regulatory and funding powers. Arguably prior administrations have not served our interests all that well. These cutbacks and his ham fisted personal diplomacy likely will make the situation worse.

An example taken from a Foreign Affairs analysis:

But the correspondence addressed to South Korean President Lee Jae-Myung particularly caught my eye: “If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, will be added to the 25% that we charge,” Trump wrote.

What was most peculiar to me was not Trump’s vulgar and imposing tone or the lack of refinement in official correspondence from a U.S. president. Neither of these is altogether new. Rather, it was how disconnected the letter was from the realities of the U.S.-South Korea trade relationship. Seoul already has a free trade agreement with Washington and imposes almost zero tariffs on U.S. goods.

This kind of casual arbitrariness matters for the United States’ future in a world where China dominates international commercial exchanges. If Trump can so thoughtlessly bully treaty allies such as South Korea and Japan—or other countries with traditionally close ties or even a degree of dependence on Washington for their security—then it is time to establish a new countdown: How long will it be before they discount their ties with the United States and build new economic partnerships and security networks instead?

The answer is uncertain, but none of this bodes well for the United States’ long-term position in the world. Eventually, U.S. allies will change course as a matter of their own prosperity and self-preservation. And if even long-standing allies can begin to fundamentally recalculate the advantages of working with Washington, will countries that are less deeply connected to the United States be far behind? -- The U.S. Can No Longer Stave Off Competition From China, Beijing dominates global trade. But it couldn’t turn that into a geopolitical advantage—until Trump 2.0., Howard W. French, Foreign Policy, 7/18/2025 (Paywall)

Will the elimination of subject experts and support staff in a consolidating reorganization field a more efficient diplomacy with attendant positive results? Or will the remaining employees be hard pressed under stress, burnout and produce compromised results?

 

[jaypatriot]

I do appreciate your effort to distinguish between a government agency downsizing and a for-profit corporation downsizing.
You spelled the differences in their organizational objectives quite nicely.

Thanks for taking the time to do that.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Boy imagine how great they would run if they hired 10 million more people.

Thank God the anit war admin is killing its diplomatic wing

 

[The Brad Dad]

Doge has forced the bureaucracy to do what’s been long overdue and I believe most people would agree with that. However, certainly the way it’s been presented gives the impression of a slash and burn operation or the more grotesque impression of kill them all and let God sort them out. So now the surviving managers have the unenviable task of sorting out even deeper cuts of the first survivors of who lives and who goes. I think in the vernacular it’s called shock therapy.

You're talking about a functional government. Not the HR team. It was all slash and burn, and Musk granting himself contracts.