“Department of State” Between the Lines

Summary: Section 2.6 of Project 2025, titled “Department of State,” outlines a comprehensive strategy for restructuring the U.S. Department of State to align more closely with the priorities of the next conservative administration. The section highlights perceived inefficiencies within the department, particularly regarding its resistance to conservative policies and its management of international agreements and diplomacy. The recommendations emphasize centralizing power within the executive branch, exerting stronger political control over career diplomats, and reshaping U.S. foreign policy to confront key global adversaries, such as China and Iran, more aggressively.

In-Depth Analysis:

1. Restructuring the Department of State:
   • Policy Proposal: The section advocates for a significant overhaul of the State Department, including placing political appointees in key leadership positions and reducing the influence of career diplomats who may oppose the administration’s agenda. It also suggests reviewing and potentially revoking ongoing international agreements that do not align with the new administration’s policies.
   • Concerning Implications: Centralizing control within the executive branch and minimizing the role of career diplomats could undermine the State Department’s ability to provide balanced, non-partisan advice on foreign policy matters. It could lead to a politicization of diplomacy, where foreign policy decisions are driven more by political loyalty than by expertise or long-term strategic interests.
   • Potential Consequences: This restructuring could result in a less stable and predictable foreign policy, as rapid changes in leadership and direction may confuse allies and embolden adversaries. The focus on political appointees might also weaken institutional knowledge and continuity within the State Department, potentially impairing its effectiveness in managing complex international relationships.
2. Reasserting Executive Control Over International Agreements:
   • Policy Proposal: The document recommends that the next administration freeze and review all ongoing international agreements and treaties, particularly those not ratified by the Senate, to ensure they align with the new administration’s foreign policy goals. The State Department would be directed to recalibrate its approach to these agreements, with an emphasis on restoring constitutional governance.
   • Concerning Implications: While reviewing international agreements is within the administration’s prerogative, the approach outlined here could strain diplomatic relationships and erode trust in the United States as a reliable partner. The blanket suspension of treaties and agreements may be perceived as a retreat from international commitments, leading to increased global instability.
   • Potential Consequences: This policy could have far-reaching consequences, including damaging alliances, weakening international institutions, and reducing the U.S.’s influence in global affairs. It may also provoke retaliatory actions from other nations, further complicating diplomatic efforts and international cooperation.
   • Constitutional Conflict: The recommendation to freeze the enforcement of treaties not ratified by the Senate aligns with constitutional principles, as the Constitution mandates that treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate to become law (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). However, the potential overreach in unilaterally revoking or altering agreements without Senate input could raise constitutional concerns regarding the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
   • Citation: (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2).
3. Addressing the Chinese and Iranian Threats:
   • Policy Proposal: The section outlines an aggressive stance towards China and Iran, advocating for a mix of offensive and defensive strategies to counter these nations’ influence. It suggests using the State Department to coordinate a unified response to Chinese and Iranian actions, including reassessing U.S. diplomatic efforts and implementing more stringent economic and security measures.
   • Concerning Implications: While a strong response to these global adversaries is important, the proposed strategies could lead to heightened tensions and increased risks of conflict. The emphasis on an “offensive-defensive mix” suggests a willingness to engage in confrontational policies that may provoke retaliatory actions from China and Iran.
   • Potential Consequences: The aggressive posture recommended in this section could escalate global tensions, potentially leading to military conflicts that would have severe consequences for global stability. The focus on these two nations might also detract from other critical areas of U.S. foreign policy, leading to an unbalanced approach to international relations.
4. Engagement with International Organizations:
   • Policy Proposal: The document calls for a reassessment of U.S. participation in international organizations, with the aim of withdrawing from those that do not align with American interests or that promote policies contrary to conservative values. It also recommends using U.S. influence to reshape the agendas of these organizations to better reflect the administration’s priorities.
   • Concerning Implications: A unilateral withdrawal from international organizations could isolate the U.S. and reduce its ability to influence global policies. The emphasis on aligning international organizations with specific ideological goals may undermine the broader mission of these entities, which often require cooperation and compromise among diverse member states.
   • Potential Consequences: This approach could lead to a reduction in U.S. influence in international forums, allowing other nations to fill the vacuum and shape global policies in ways that may not align with American interests. It could also weaken international efforts to address global challenges, such as climate change, human rights, and security threats.

Conclusion Statement: The proposals outlined in the “Department of State” section of Project 2025 represent a significant shift in how the United States would approach diplomacy and international relations under a conservative administration. While the recommendations aim to streamline the State Department and align it more closely with the administration’s priorities, they raise serious concerns about the potential politicization of diplomacy, the risks of an overly aggressive foreign policy, and the possible erosion of U.S. influence in international organizations. As these policies are considered, it is crucial to ensure that they uphold constitutional principles, promote global stability, and maintain the U.S.’s leadership role on the world stage.

Potential Concerns: Department of State

• National Security and Alliances

  • Provoking Adversaries: The strategy to strengthen alliances and reinforce commitments to NATO and other allied nations could provoke adversaries like Russia and China, potentially escalating geopolitical tensions. Increased funding for joint military exercises and defense capabilities might be perceived as a threat, leading to an arms race or heightened military confrontations.

  • Regional Stability: The focus on enhancing the U.S. diplomatic and military presence in the Asia-Pacific region to counterbalance China’s influence might destabilize the region. While strengthening ties with allies is crucial, it risks triggering conflicts with China, which could have significant economic and security repercussions for the region and the world.

• Economic Diplomacy

  • Trade Negotiations: Aggressive trade negotiations and the pursuit of new trade agreements may strain relationships with key trading partners. Retaliatory measures by these countries could disrupt global trade dynamics, affecting American industries and workers. The focus on reducing trade deficits and protecting intellectual property must be balanced with maintaining healthy international trade relationships.

  • Foreign Investment: Encouraging foreign investment in the U.S. and supporting American businesses abroad is beneficial, but it must be carefully managed to avoid compromising national interests. Regulatory reforms and economic incentives should be designed to protect critical sectors from foreign influence that might undermine U.S. economic sovereignty.

• Promoting Democracy and Human Rights

  • Diplomatic Overreach: Providing support to democratic movements and implementing sanctions on authoritarian regimes align with American values but can be seen as interference in the internal affairs of other nations. This could lead to diplomatic backlash and strained bilateral relationships. The U.S. must balance its advocacy for human rights with respect for the sovereignty of other nations.

  • Sanctions and Humanitarian Impact: Sanctions targeting authoritarian regimes must be carefully designed to avoid harming the general population. Broad sanctions can exacerbate humanitarian crises, leading to unintended suffering. A targeted approach that minimizes collateral damage while effectively pressuring oppressive regimes is essential.

Modernizing the Department of State

• Continuous Investment: Enhancing diplomatic training and investing in modern technology are necessary, but they require continuous funding and support. There is a risk that these initiatives might not receive sustained investment, leading to gaps in training and outdated technological systems. Ensuring long-term commitment to these upgrades is crucial for maintaining diplomatic effectiveness.

• Technological Integration: Implementing technological upgrades must be managed carefully to ensure smooth integration with existing systems. Any disruptions during the transition period could impact the efficiency of diplomatic operations. Proper planning and phased implementation are necessary to mitigate these risks.

• Public Diplomacy

  • Consistency and Sensitivity: Strengthening public diplomacy efforts to improve the U.S. image abroad requires consistent and culturally sensitive engagement. Efforts must be sustained and adapted to the cultural contexts of different regions to be effective. There is a risk that inconsistent messaging or culturally insensitive programs could backfire, damaging the U.S. reputation.

  • Combating Misinformation: Leveraging social media and digital platforms is a modern approach to diplomacy, but it also involves risks. Ensuring accurate representation of U.S. policies and combating misinformation require effective strategies. There is a risk of spreading misinformation if not managed properly, which could further harm the U.S. image and credibility.

Conclusion

The “Department of State” subsection of Project 2025 outlines a comprehensive strategy to enhance U.S. foreign policy. However, several potential concerns need to be addressed. These include the risk of provoking adversaries, the impact of aggressive trade negotiations, diplomatic overreach, the humanitarian impact of sanctions, the need for continuous investment in modernization, and the challenges of consistent and sensitive public diplomacy. Balancing these concerns with strategic goals and implementing robust oversight mechanisms is essential to ensure the success and sustainability of U.S. diplomatic efforts.

Breaking Down the Concerns: Department of State

• Provoking Adversaries: Strengthening alliances and increasing military activities might anger countries like Russia and China, leading to more conflicts and a possible arms race.

• Regional Stability: Increasing the U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific to counter China could destabilize the region and create economic and security issues.

• Trade Negotiations: Aggressive trade talks could upset trading partners, leading to retaliatory actions that harm American businesses and workers.

• Foreign Investment: Encouraging foreign investment must be managed carefully to protect important U.S. industries from foreign control.

• Diplomatic Overreach: Supporting democracy abroad and sanctioning authoritarian regimes can be seen as interfering in other countries’ affairs, straining relations.

• Sanctions and Humanitarian Impact: Sanctions must be targeted to avoid worsening humanitarian crises and hurting ordinary people in affected countries.

• Continuous Investment: Diplomatic training and technology upgrades need ongoing funding to stay effective. Without sustained investment, these initiatives may fall short.

• Technological Integration: New technology must be smoothly integrated to avoid disruptions. Careful planning is needed to ensure diplomatic operations continue efficiently.

• Consistency and Sensitivity: Public diplomacy efforts must be consistent and culturally aware to improve the U.S. image abroad. Missteps could harm America’s reputation.

• Combating Misinformation: Using social media and digital platforms is important but challenging. Ensuring accurate information and countering falsehoods requires effective strategies.

Red Flags in the Reforms: Analyzing Troubling Quotes

• Quote: “The American people need and deserve a diplomatic machine fully focused on the national interest as defined through the election of a President who sets the domestic and international agenda for the nation. The next Administration must take swift and decisive steps to reforge the department into a lean and functional diplomatic machine that serves the President and, thereby, the American people” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 161).

  • Summarize Quote: The State Department should strictly follow the President’s agenda, focusing solely on the national interest as defined by the President.

  • Explanation: This statement suggests a shift towards a highly centralized and potentially politicized State Department, with less emphasis on independent diplomatic analysis and more on adherence to the President’s directives. This could reduce the department’s effectiveness in nuanced diplomacy and international relations, as it may prioritize political loyalty over expertise and objective assessment. Such an approach risks oversimplifying complex global issues and could lead to the marginalization of diverse perspectives necessary for well-rounded foreign policy.

• Quote: “The next Administration should assert leadership over, and guidance to, the State Department by placing political appointees in positions that do not require Senate confirmation, including senior advisors, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and Deputy Assistant Secretaries” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 163).

  • Summarize Quote: The proposal is to fill key State Department roles with political appointees, bypassing Senate confirmation.

  • Explanation: By bypassing the Senate confirmation process, this approach could reduce the transparency and accountability of key appointments within the State Department. It risks prioritizing political loyalty over qualifications and expertise, potentially undermining the department’s capacity to handle complex international issues. Moreover, this strategy may marginalize career diplomats and civil servants, who bring essential experience and continuity to U.S. foreign policy.

• Quote: “To the extent possible, all non-confirmed senior appointees should be selected by the President-elect’s transition team or the new President’s Office of Presidential Personnel (depending on the timing of selection) and be in place the first day of the Administration. No one in a leadership position on the morning of January 20 should hold that position at the end of the day” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 163).

  • Summarize Quote: The statement advocates for replacing all senior leadership at the State Department with new political appointees on the first day of the new administration.

  • Explanation: This approach suggests a complete overhaul of the State Department’s leadership, replacing all existing senior officials with political appointees aligned with the new administration. Such a drastic measure could lead to significant disruption within the department, resulting in a loss of institutional knowledge and continuity. It may also foster a climate of instability and uncertainty among career diplomats and civil servants, potentially hindering the department’s effectiveness and morale. Furthermore, prioritizing political loyalty over experience and expertise in such appointments could undermine the quality of U.S. diplomacy and international relations, as critical positions may be filled by individuals lacking the necessary qualifications or experience.

• Quote: “All ambassadors are required to submit letters of resignation at the start of a new Administration… The next Administration must go further: It should both accept the resignations of all political ambassadors and quickly review and reassess all career ambassadors” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 164).

  • Summarize Quote: All ambassadors should resign at the start of a new administration, with a review and potential reassessment of career ambassadors.

  • Explanation: This approach suggests a complete overhaul of U.S. diplomatic representation worldwide, potentially disrupting ongoing diplomatic initiatives and relationships. The mass reassignment of ambassadors could lead to instability and a lack of continuity in U.S. foreign policy. Such actions might also send a message of distrust towards career diplomats, undermining morale and the perceived value of professional expertise in international relations.

• Quote: “The next President should recalibrate how the State Department handles treaties and agreements, primarily by restoring constitutionality to these processes. He or she should direct the Secretary of State to freeze any ongoing treaty or international agreement negotiations and assess whether those efforts align with the new President’s foreign policy direction” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 165).

  • Summarize Quote: The recommendation is to halt all current treaty and agreement negotiations to ensure they align with the new President’s foreign policy direction.

  • Explanation: The suggestion to freeze ongoing treaty and agreement negotiations until they can be reviewed for alignment with the new administration’s policies may disrupt important international agreements and diplomatic relations. This approach could create instability and uncertainty among international partners, potentially damaging the United States’ credibility and reliability as a global actor. Moreover, the emphasis on aligning treaties strictly with the President’s agenda might undermine the traditional bipartisan support and long-term consistency often required in international agreements, affecting issues like trade, security, and environmental cooperation.

• Quote: “The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region. Economic freedom spurs prosperity, innovation, respect for the rule of law, jobs, and sustainability. Most important, economic freedom can help to keep the Arctic stable and secure” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 179).

  • Summarize Quote: The U.S. should assert its interests in the Arctic, emphasizing economic freedom to promote stability and security.

  • Explanation: While promoting economic freedom is generally positive, this statement could imply a unilateral approach to Arctic policy that prioritizes U.S. economic interests potentially at the expense of environmental protection and the interests of indigenous communities. A focus solely on economic development could neglect important considerations like climate change and sustainable resource management. The aggressive pursuit of U.S. interests without adequate international cooperation could also heighten tensions with other Arctic nations, particularly Russia and Canada.

• Quote: “The U.S. should work with allies to establish a clear framework of enforceable norms for actions in cyberspace, moving beyond the voluntary norms of the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts” (Project 2025, 2024, p. 184).

  • Summarize Quote: The proposal is to establish enforceable international norms for cyberspace actions, rather than relying on voluntary agreements.

  • Explanation: Establishing enforceable norms in cyberspace is a crucial step towards enhancing global cybersecurity. However, the implementation of such norms must be carefully managed to avoid overreach and respect national sovereignty. There is a risk that enforcing these norms could be seen as imposing U.S. standards on other countries, potentially leading to international tensions. Additionally, the effectiveness of such norms would depend on broad international cooperation, which may be challenging to achieve given the divergent interests and capabilities of different countries.

Conclusion

The proposals in the Department of State subsection of Project 2025 outline a vision for a more centralized and politically aligned U.S. foreign policy apparatus. The emphasis on prioritizing the President’s agenda, increasing the number of political appointees, and reassessing the diplomatic corps suggests a significant shift towards politicizing the State Department. This could undermine the expertise and impartiality necessary for effective diplomacy and international relations. Furthermore, the focus on U.S. interests, particularly in areas like the Arctic and cyberspace, without adequate consideration of international norms and cooperation, could lead to increased global tensions and reduce the effectiveness of multilateral initiatives.

The potential immunity ruling could exacerbate these concerns by shielding government officials from accountability, allowing for the unchecked implementation of these policies. This lack of accountability could lead to the marginalization of expert opinions, the erosion of diplomatic norms, and the potential for significant international backlash. Overall, the proposed changes risk undermining the U.S.’s standing in the world, reducing its ability to effectively engage in diplomacy, and potentially leading to a more isolationist and unilateral foreign policy stance.

“Department of State” In a Nutshell

The “Department of State” section of Project 2025 outlines a plan for a major overhaul of the U.S. Department of State to align it more closely with the next conservative administration’s priorities. The proposals focus on centralizing control within the executive branch, specifically under the President, and significantly reducing the influence of career diplomats who might oppose or slow down the administration’s policy agenda. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and concerns:

Centralization of Power:

• The plan emphasizes placing political appointees loyal to the President in key leadership positions within the State Department. This move aims to ensure that the Department strictly follows the President’s directives without resistance from career diplomats who might have differing views.
• All ambassadors, including career diplomats, would be required to submit resignations, with the next administration likely replacing them with individuals more aligned with its vision. This could disrupt continuity in U.S. foreign policy and weaken institutional knowledge.

Reevaluation of International Agreements:

• The document recommends halting all ongoing treaty negotiations and reassessing existing international agreements to ensure they align with the new administration’s goals. This approach risks damaging U.S. credibility and reliability as a global partner, potentially leading to strained relationships with allies and other nations.
• There is a strong emphasis on withdrawing from or revising treaties that do not benefit U.S. interests as defined by the new administration. This could create global instability and erode trust in the U.S.’s commitment to international agreements.

Confronting Adversaries:

• A more aggressive stance towards global adversaries, particularly China and Iran, is recommended. The document suggests an “offensive-defensive” strategy to counter these nations, which might escalate tensions and increase the likelihood of conflict.
• The U.S. is encouraged to take a more unilateral approach in areas like the Arctic and cyberspace, prioritizing American interests even at the expense of international cooperation. This could lead to increased global tensions and reduce the effectiveness of multilateral efforts to address global challenges.

Reforming the Bureaucracy:

• A major restructuring of the State Department is proposed to make it more efficient and focused on the President’s agenda. However, this could result in the politicization of U.S. diplomacy, where decisions are driven more by political loyalty than by expertise or long-term strategic interests.
• The plan also includes consolidating foreign assistance programs under tighter control to ensure they align with the President’s foreign policy goals. This centralization might reduce the flexibility and effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid.

Potential Impact on U.S. Diplomacy:

• The overall impact of these proposals could lead to a more unpredictable and less stable U.S. foreign policy, as rapid changes in leadership and direction may confuse allies and embolden adversaries.
• The focus on political appointees might weaken the State Department’s ability to manage complex international relationships, as institutional knowledge and diplomatic expertise could be marginalized.
• The aggressive posture towards adversaries and the emphasis on American interests could isolate the U.S. on the global stage, reducing its influence and potentially leading to more conflicts.

In summary, while the proposals aim to streamline the State Department and align it more closely with the administration’s priorities, they raise significant concerns about the potential politicization of U.S. diplomacy, the risks of an overly aggressive foreign policy, and the possible erosion of U.S. influence in international organizations. These changes could lead to a less stable and more fragmented approach to international relations, with long-term implications for global stability and U.S. leadership on the world stage.