Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead
US State Department to Cut Over 1,300 Jobs
The United States State Department is preparing to lay off more than 1,300 employees as part of a restructuring plan introduced under the Trump administration. This includes around 1,107 civil servants and 246 Foreign Service officers, who are expected to be placed on administrative leave for up to 120 days before formal termination procedures begin.
Supreme Court Clears Legal Obstacle
The layoffs come after the US Supreme Court lifted earlier restrictions that had stalled the administration’s reorganisation efforts. With legal clearance now in place, the State Department is proceeding with its plan to streamline operations and reduce what officials have described as bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Objective: Reduce Overlap, Boost Efficiency
Government officials have stated that the reorganisation is designed to eliminate redundant roles and improve efficiency. They argue that the current structure is bloated and in need of reform. Positions affected span over 300 offices and departments, with officials claiming that essential services and diplomatic responsibilities will remain unaffected.
Widespread Concern from Diplomats and Experts
The announcement has sparked criticism from several former diplomats and foreign policy experts, who believe the cuts could weaken America’s global diplomatic presence. They warn of a decline in institutional knowledge, reduced responsiveness during international crises, and a drop in morale among remaining staff.
USAID Integration Adds to Concerns
Adding to the shake-up is the merger of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) into the State Department. Over 90% of USAID staff have reportedly lost their jobs, with 83% of its programmes cancelled. Critics say this merger could undermine America’s ability to deliver foreign aid and development support effectively.
The situation continues to evolve as notifications are being issued in phases. While the administration maintains the changes are fiscally responsible, debate continues over the long-term consequences of such deep cuts.
