State Department Layoffs Hit 1,300+ Employees
The U.S. State Department initiated layoffs affecting at least 1,353 employees today, according to Reuters, part of a sweeping reorganization originating from the Trump administration’s push toward a leaner federal apparatus.
Notices landed in the inboxes of 1,107 domestic civil service staff and 246 foreign service officers based in the U.S.
This follows the Supreme Court’s recent approval of the plan, which had been paused by lower courts requiring congressional consultation.
Deputy Secretary Michael Rigas described the effort as targeting redundant offices and duplicative roles, to “streamline domestic operations to focus on diplomatic priorities”.
Separation periods vary—60 days for civil service, and 120 for foreign service officers currently on administrative leave.
Supporters argue this move enhances agility and cuts bureaucratic bloat. Secretary Marco Rubio, visiting Kuala Lumpur, emphasized eliminating positions—not people—and said the department is eliminating structures, not service.
The August plan had been flagged for eliminating nearly 18 % of domestic roles, around 3,000 jobs, when combined with voluntary exits.
Critics counter that the cuts will erode institutional capacity and degrade U.S. diplomacy at a moment of heightened global tensions. The American Academy of Diplomacy calls it “an act of vandalism” that drains expertise required to monitor crises spanning Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.
Foreign service veteran Gordon Duguid says dismissals aren’t merit‑based:
“They’re doing it without any consideration of the worth of the individual people … they just want people who say, ‘OK, how high’ to jump,” and warns this strategy is “a recipe for disaster”.
The reorganization also targets USAID functions, absorbing the aid agency into the State Department after deep funding cuts earlier this year.
The focus now shifts to whether the remaining workforce can adapt swiftly or whether diplomatic gaps emerge as emergencies unfold. This remains a pivotal test of governance efficiency versus the need for experienced diplomatic networks on the ground.
