Over the last few months, the news has been flooded with reports of intensive restructuring and mass layoffs in the U.S. government, largely at the hands of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). From Social Security and the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Department of Education, many aspects of the public sector are undergoing this controversial reshaping. One area where staffing cuts have made significant headlines is the Department of State.
DOGE was created via executive order at the start of President Donald Trump’s second term in office. Elon Musk, who was a senior advisor to President Trump at the time, is heavily tied to its creation and early operation. Its goal, as the name suggests, is to maximize government efficiency by slimming the bureaucracy, eliminating needless spending, and generally improving its function. According to its official website, the average taxpayer is saving more than $1,200 because of its efforts.
In April, Reuters reported that President Trump had frozen more than $430 billion dollars in total government funding. The DOGE website also boasts over $200 billion in savings from programmatic changes, contract changes, and more. An estimated $42 billion, around a tenth of the total cuts, was taken from State Department spending.
Why is the State Department being cut so severely? Officials attribute it in part to bureaucratic stagnation. Marco Rubio, the current Secretary of State in the Trump Administration, has commented on the “underlying bureaucratic culture” that he says “prevents the State Department from carrying out an effective foreign policy.”
A July 2025 article from Fox News reports that State Department officials under Secretary Rubio sought to cut “duplicative” staff from the ranks in an effort to reduce bandwidth. Allegedly, a “maximum of 12 clearances” was put in place for those reviewing documents, reducing the previous astronomical figure of 40 to 50 clearances for every piece of paper dramatically. Not only were such changes made to reduce personnel, but they were intended to accelerate the bureaucratic process by eliminating red tape.
In the wake of these substantial cuts, many speculate about the national and international waves they will make. Making the government more efficient and saving money are undoubtedly noble goals, but the reality is that reducing organizations like the State Department may have unintended — and dire — consequences. Not only does less investment in the State Department change the power dynamic abroad, it limits opportunities for those citizens hoping to involve themselves.
Former U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) employee Jim Palmer explained his feelings on the current situation. Palmer served a mission in Chile, which inspired him to pursue a career in the foreign service. After earning a degree in Spanish from BYU, he joined USAID and spent time in various countries, including Colombia, India, as well as Liberia during the Liberian Civil War in the 1990s.
“[I feel] unappreciated,” Palmer said regarding the reduction of the State Department. “People like me have spent a career working, trying to improve U.S. relations overseas. Now, I see the work we did being cut back or in some cases eliminated.”
Close to home, cuts are having a profound effect on the government job market. Not only are people losing their jobs, but those jobs are being eliminated completely. Palmer said that “a lot of these staffing cuts are taking place in the public diplomacy code.” In other words, professionals tasked with managing external relations, which are critical to international peace and progress, are being let go.
Scholarships and other opportunities for college students and BYU are also being eliminated. Cory Leonard of BYU’s Kennedy Center shed light on the scholarship/internship situation for prospective employees. He affirmed that the Department of Defense’s Boren Scholarship has yet to be cut, but that as for “the state department [scholarships], we don’t know yet.”
Such scholarships include Fulbrights, which are awarded to students, teachers, and scholars to study, teach, or conduct research internationally. Other programs that are on the line are the Critical Language scholarship and the Rangel International Affairs Program, which help students learn State Department-relevant languages and support students in international affairs graduate programs, respectively.
Furthermore, new internships and Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT) submissions are currently frozen. Fewer available openings and fewer resources for individuals hoping to serve may not harm the State Department now. However, historic pipelines such as that from BYU may be stifled, leading to a dramatic difference in the workforce down the road.
Government agencies, industries, such as the FBI, CIA, and State Department, have become top recruiters for BYU graduates. Among the reasons for this are BYU students’ above-average cultural and linguistic knowledge from LDS missions, good humanities programs, and a well-deserved reputation that BYU graduates are reliable. Recruiting from BYU has been a long-standing practice, but it is being disrupted by these current changes.
Not only is it disheartening to see years of work all but erased and new talent squandered, Palmer is also wary of the vacuum that less influence abroad will create. He believes turning away from our allies, even close neighbors like Canada, is a bad idea. He worries that it could make other nations more inclined to turn to other sources for support, even those who are enemies of the U.S.
“The Chinese and the Russians are already busily taking advantage of [State Department downsizing],” Palmer stated. He isn`t alone in believing less foreign support will lead to more conflict. Jim Mattis, former commander of U.S. Central Command, famously stated that "if [they] don'’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.”
Signs of diplomatic shifts are already evident. TIME reports that India is increasing its partnership with China despite tensions over the Kashmir territory and other issues. Heavy U.S. tariffs on India are a primary driver behind the drift, and a weakened State Department with fewer diplomats than before will not be as effective in resolving this issue.
Going forward, the future for State Department hopefuls and the department’s larger role are uncertain. Still, not all is lost. Leonard stated that “students should still consider preparing for public service.” However, he noted that “like we’ve always told students at BYU, [it] should not be your plan A, it should be your plan B.” As it’s been in the past, the chances of getting such a position have never been concrete.
The State Department has always been a subject of debate regarding its structure, and each new administration brings with it a unique philosophy on this matter. Through these current changes, both good and bad, one thing is certain: America needs good diplomats, and BYU