Something “big” dropping this week ahead at Dept. State

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s how the proposed changes outlined in the NYT article align with Project 25 priorities. You know, the same Project 25 that Trump claimed he didn’t know anything about and wasn’t following anyway.

1. Mass layoffs, buyouts by Sept. 30
→ Aligns with: Downsizing the federal workforce
Cuts career diplomats to install ideologically aligned personnel.

2. Elimination of climate, refugee, democracy, and human rights bureaus
→ Aligns with: Deconstructing the administrative state
Dismantles progressive policy arms of foreign affairs.

3. End of the Foreign Service Exam; loyalty-based hiring
→ Aligns with: Loyalty over meritocracy
Replaces institutional career paths with political alignment.

4. AI used to draft documents and plan policy
→ Aligns with: Technocratic streamlining
Centralizes power, reduces bureaucratic discretion.

5. Replacement of regional bureaus with 4 new “corps”
→ Aligns with: Structural government overhaul
Simplifies hierarchy to assert tighter executive control.

6. Closure of most Africa-related operations
→ Aligns with: "America First" foreign policy
Retreat from global engagement not seen as strategically essential.

7. Cut Fulbright scholarships (except national security); eliminate Rangel/Pickering
→ Aligns with: Limiting liberal education pipelines
Defunds diversity- and diplomacy-focused academic programs.

8. New Under Secretary for Transnational Threat Elimination
→ Aligns with: National security priority
Elevates immigration, terrorism, and cross-border crime issues.

9. USAID functions absorbed into humanitarian bureau
→ Aligns with: Centralization and weakening soft power
Shrinks independent aid arm; shifts focus to crisis-only response.

10. Downsizing U.S. operations in Canada
→ Aligns with: Bilateral over multilateral diplomacy
De-emphasizes traditional alliances unless deemed security-critical.

11. 50% budget cut; embassy and consulate closures
→ Aligns with: Fiscal restraint and isolationist lean
Reduces global diplomatic footprint, slashes spending.

Looks great but we need additional cuts and efficiency with more ai implementation.

... Have you ever used AI? It can be useful sometimes for some things. But overall it doesn't work. It isn't reliable. Sometimes it is correct, sometimes it is wrong, sometimes it hallucinates. It is fundamentally dumb.

So MAGA except occasionally it is right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminating embassies and consulates in sub-Sahara Africa only. Is there any explanation for this other than straight-up racism?

Yes, MAGA doesn’t see the region as a strategic priority. Which is shortsighted because that’s where a lot of population growth will occur in the future.

Africans really need to control their population if they want any kind of economic development.

Well there were 50 million in condoms to be distributed in Africa . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

I’m the person you quote (with the bad typing skills because on my phone ads cover the typing text). I agree, it tends to be self-selecting and it is a mission that tends to be more in line with the liberal mind set. I was just saying to my husband that I was wondering who they will get if it is ideologically aligned. I think it is a huge mistake to give up soft power and basically cede Africa to China.

[Anonymous]

Getting rid of the useless Sec. of State Rubio is too much to hope for. Maybe his replacement is Marjorie Taylor Greene. I hope so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

I’m the person you quote (with the bad typing skills because on my phone ads cover the typing text). I agree, it tends to be self-selecting and it is a mission that tends to be more in line with the liberal mind set. I was just saying to my husband that I was wondering who they will get if it is ideologically aligned. I think it is a huge mistake to give up soft power and basically cede Africa to China.

It isn't a liberal mindset to have embassies in every country to serve Americans abroad and facilitate trade with each country. That is what countries do in the post WW2 era. To suggest that is a "liberal" value is insulting to anyone with a brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminating embassies and consulates in sub-Sahara Africa only. Is there any explanation for this other than straight-up racism?

Yes, MAGA doesn’t see the region as a strategic priority. Which is shortsighted because that’s where a lot of population growth will occur in the future.

Africans really need to control their population if they want any kind of economic development.

You may get your wish since the US will no longer be funding infectious disease prevention (like HIV) in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

+1. and I hate to say it, MAGAs are less educated. We know that education correlates strongly to voting patterns. Even the top MAGAs are not the best and brightest - I always noticed how Vought menos from OPM during Trump I were written like a Sixth grader and full of errors.

as well - there is an inherently liberalizing impact of living abroad and learning a second language, which all FSOs have done or aspire to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s how the proposed changes outlined in the NYT article align with Project 25 priorities. You know, the same Project 25 that Trump claimed he didn’t know anything about and wasn’t following anyway.

1. Mass layoffs, buyouts by Sept. 30
→ Aligns with: Downsizing the federal workforce
Cuts career diplomats to install ideologically aligned personnel.

2. Elimination of climate, refugee, democracy, and human rights bureaus
→ Aligns with: Deconstructing the administrative state
Dismantles progressive policy arms of foreign affairs.

3. End of the Foreign Service Exam; loyalty-based hiring
→ Aligns with: Loyalty over meritocracy
Replaces institutional career paths with political alignment.

4. AI used to draft documents and plan policy
→ Aligns with: Technocratic streamlining
Centralizes power, reduces bureaucratic discretion.

5. Replacement of regional bureaus with 4 new “corps”
→ Aligns with: Structural government overhaul
Simplifies hierarchy to assert tighter executive control.

6. Closure of most Africa-related operations
→ Aligns with: "America First" foreign policy
Retreat from global engagement not seen as strategically essential.

7. Cut Fulbright scholarships (except national security); eliminate Rangel/Pickering
→ Aligns with: Limiting liberal education pipelines
Defunds diversity- and diplomacy-focused academic programs.

8. New Under Secretary for Transnational Threat Elimination
→ Aligns with: National security priority
Elevates immigration, terrorism, and cross-border crime issues.

9. USAID functions absorbed into humanitarian bureau
→ Aligns with: Centralization and weakening soft power
Shrinks independent aid arm; shifts focus to crisis-only response.

10. Downsizing U.S. operations in Canada
→ Aligns with: Bilateral over multilateral diplomacy
De-emphasizes traditional alliances unless deemed security-critical.

11. 50% budget cut; embassy and consulate closures
→ Aligns with: Fiscal restraint and isolationist lean
Reduces global diplomatic footprint, slashes spending.

Looks great but we need additional cuts and efficiency with more ai implementation.

I truly want to know how you envision “ai implementation” of foreign policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Because the GOP hates competency and intelligence. The FSO exam separates the wheat from the chaff in terms of weighing knowledge and temperment to ensure the career diplomats truly represent the best of our country and not partisan loyalty.

Not always. I have met some incredibly dim FS Generalists. I always wondered how the hell they got through the process.

Maybe they present as dim, but they clearly passed the test. Maybe it is an indictment of how subpar the afore mentioned "his people" the GOP ambassador references actually are?

Some have gotten in without passing. That’s the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

+1. and I hate to say it, MAGAs are less educated. We know that education correlates strongly to voting patterns. Even the top MAGAs are not the best and brightest - I always noticed how Vought menos from OPM during Trump I were written like a Sixth grader and full of errors.

as well - there is an inherently liberalizing impact of living abroad and learning a second language, which all FSOs have done or aspire to do.

Hopefully, elitist snobs like you won't be representing our country in any meaningful capacity anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Because the GOP hates competency and intelligence. The FSO exam separates the wheat from the chaff in terms of weighing knowledge and temperment to ensure the career diplomats truly represent the best of our country and not partisan loyalty.

Not always. I have met some incredibly dim FS Generalists. I always wondered how the hell they got through the process.

Maybe they present as dim, but they clearly passed the test. Maybe it is an indictment of how subpar the afore mentioned "his people" the GOP ambassador references actually are?

Some have gotten in without passing. That’s the issue.

Then why didn't the GOP ambassador get "his people" in without passing? I find this very hard to believe. Is there a link or something to document FSO's who didn't pass the FS exam?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

+1. and I hate to say it, MAGAs are less educated. We know that education correlates strongly to voting patterns. Even the top MAGAs are not the best and brightest - I always noticed how Vought menos from OPM during Trump I were written like a Sixth grader and full of errors.

as well - there is an inherently liberalizing impact of living abroad and learning a second language, which all FSOs have done or aspire to do.

Hopefully, elitist snobs like you won't be representing our country in any meaningful capacity anywhere.

So it is better to have people who don't have the training or speak the language handling these matters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminating embassies and consulates in sub-Sahara Africa only. Is there any explanation for this other than straight-up racism?

Yes, MAGA doesn’t see the region as a strategic priority. Which is shortsighted because that’s where a lot of population growth will occur in the future.

Africans really need to control their population if they want any kind of economic development.

Well there were 50 million in condoms to be distributed in Africa . . .

You have to ve civilized and motivated enough to want to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eliminating embassies and consulates in sub-Sahara Africa only. Is there any explanation for this other than straight-up racism?

Yes, MAGA doesn’t see the region as a strategic priority. Which is shortsighted because that’s where a lot of population growth will occur in the future.

Africans really need to control their population if they want any kind of economic development.

Well there were 50 million in condoms to be distributed in Africa . . .

You have to ve civilized and motivated enough to want to use them.

"civilized"

wow, you sound like one of those 18th century propagandists who refer to "deep dark" Africa with those "uncivilized" natives while somehow excusing the looting, pillaging and kidnapping taken place under the banner of "Christianity"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Complete reorganization. Getting rid of FSO test.

Wonder if they are going to do what Congressman Wayne Hays tried to do in the 70s and make all State employees be part of the FS?

They want to do hiring based on “charisma” and ideological agreement with POTUS’s foreign policy agenda. Not a joke.

Of course, what happens when a POTUS changes and staff no longer align?

So the State Dept staff should only allign with democrat administrations? I mean, I realize that’s been the defacto standard until now, but why should it be?

You have this backwards. The FSO is neutral and career. Trump is the one creating the loyalty tests, not democrats or liberals.

Agree but realistically, Statw skews very li real (and I am a liberal).

It's called self-selection. MAGAs are too selfish for things like the Peace Corps, which along with Vets and college international relations majors, forms the cornerstone of State Department employees.

So, I guess we just end soft power and diplomacy all together then.

+1. and I hate to say it, MAGAs are less educated. We know that education correlates strongly to voting patterns. Even the top MAGAs are not the best and brightest - I always noticed how Vought menos from OPM during Trump I were written like a Sixth grader and full of errors.

as well - there is an inherently liberalizing impact of living abroad and learning a second language, which all FSOs have done or aspire to do.

Hopefully, elitist snobs like you won't be representing our country in any meaningful capacity anywhere.

So it is better to have people who don't have the training or speak the language handling these matters?

You are kidding yourself if you think only Democrats have the needed education and training, as well as fluency in more than one language.