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?

The United States has promoted democracy and American benevolence and hegemony worldwide for 80 years. That's not partisan or Democrat, it's American.

A lot of these libertarians in charge right now don't even know that so when they say realign, they don't even really know what they are moving away from.

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?

Liar. You literally don’t know what you’re talking about. It is very much not the de facto standard.

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?

When was there a democratic president who reformed the state department to ensure loyalty tests to democrats? Please list them off and be specific.

History will repeat itself and the US will not have e a global community to be allied with the cause.

https://bsky.app/profile/carlquintanilla.bsky.social/post/3lnanazcess2a

STAVRIDIS: “.. It is worth remembering how WW II began in the Pacific: with trade sanctions that cut off Japan from vital resources — notably oil, steel and rubber. .. China is now starting to cut off supplies .. over which it has a virtual global chokehold ..”

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.

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?

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.

Here’s a summary of the article from the New York Times.

Major State Department Overhaul: A draft executive order proposes a sweeping reorganization of the State Department to “streamline mission delivery” and cut costs.

Africa Operations Cut: Nearly all Africa-related operations would be eliminated, including closure of most embassies and consulates in sub-Saharan Africa.

Bureaus Eliminated: Offices handling climate change, refugees, democracy, and human rights would be shut down.

New Regional Corps: Traditional regional bureaus would be replaced with four new “corps” (Eurasia, Mid-East, Latin America, Indo-Pacific).

End of Foreign Service Exam: Hiring would instead be based on alignment with the president’s foreign policy.

Mass Layoffs and Buyouts: Career diplomats and civil service staff would be laid off or offered buyouts by Sept. 30.

AI Integration: The department would expand the use of AI for drafting documents and policy planning.

Drastic Personnel Changes: A move from generalist to regionally specialized career paths for Foreign Service officers.

Cut to Scholarships and Fellowships: Fulbright scholarships would be limited to national security studies; Rangel and Pickering fellowships (for underrepresented students) would be terminated.

Canada Office Downsized: U.S. operations in Canada would be reduced and restructured under a smaller team.

New Roles Introduced: Creation of a new Under Secretary for Transnational Threat Elimination.

USAID Further Weakened: Its remaining functions would be absorbed into the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance.

Budget and Presence Cuts: Other memos propose slashing the State Department’s budget by 50% and closing multiple embassies and consulates.

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?

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.

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.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

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.

Here is the NY Tmes coverage

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/us/politics/trump-state-department-overhaul.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

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.

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

So it will be an ideology interview of sorts? This is like an episode of MadTV but in real life.