Several months into Donald Trump’s second term, his administration is charging ahead with a sweeping overhaul of the State Department and United States foreign aid — an ambitious attempt to rewrite the playbook on American diplomacy. Guided by the “America First” doctrine, the restructuring puts national interests and fiscal restraint front and center. 

“The pros of the current America First approach is that it allows us to pick and choose on which issues to engage or not to engage,”retired United States Ambassador and Senior State Department Official Craig Cloud tells The New York Sun. “The con of that approach is that there is no shared burden, there are no common goals, and it limits cooperation.”

At the center of the overhaul is the controversial integration of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) into the State Department. This is part of a broader strategy to consolidate power, cut costs, and eliminate what the administration views as bloated, misaligned priorities.

“Folding USAID into the State Department is a masterstroke for efficiency,” Managing Director of Nestpoint Associates, John Thomas, tells the Sun. 

“It cuts redundancy — why have two agencies tripping over each other when State can call the shots? Centralizing under [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio streamlines decision-making, ensuring every dollar aligns with America First goals, not unaccountable NGOs pushing agendas like radical gender policies that African partners say clashed with their values.”

Others stress that foreign service officers don’t have the specific expertise required for aid management and distribution.

“It’s an issue of too few people with too few resources working very big problem sets,” Director of the Michael J. Morell Center for Intelligence and Security Studies at The University of Akron, Karl Kaltenthaler, tells the Sun. “There are not many upsides from this course of action if one believes that foreign aid serves tangible U.S. interests.”

The proposed budget, however, reflects the Trump team’s dramatic foreign policy shift, slashing funding for the State Department and related international programs by 83.9 percent — a staggering $49.1 billion cut. The reductions target initiatives tied to climate change, diversity, and multilateral cooperation, including contributions to the United Nations, peacekeeping missions, and global education exchanges. 

In place of the old diplomatic model, a new “America First Opportunity Fund” would channel $2.9 billion to handpicked strategic allies like Jordan and India. The United States International Development Finance Corporation would see a boost to $2.82 billion, signaling a pivot toward private-sector-led development.

The proposed budget reductions also focus on trimming the number of narrowly focused offices — many of which were created in response to specific lobbying efforts or interest group demands. 

The administration also plans to close 36 diplomatic outposts, including embassies and consulates in regions like Africa and Europe. This downsizing intends to concentrate resources on areas of strategic importance and reduce non-essential expenditures. 

“The vast majority of the State’s budget goes to payroll and infrastructure, so a smaller budget means cutting positions and eliminating embassies,” said Mr. Cloud. “Universal presence has been the governing policy of the United States for decades in the belief that in-person diplomacy is the most effective approach to wielding global influence.”

The State Department continues implementing a federal hiring freeze ordered by Mr. Trump, halting most new hires through July 15. Even after the freeze ends, strict limits will be in place, allowing agencies to hire only one employee for every four who leave.

Interestingly, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor is intact. Created during the Carter administration, this bureau is responsible for promoting human rights, supporting democratic governance, and advancing labor protections globally. Some functions from offices that are being phased out could be integrated into this bureau without reducing overall efficiency.

Global Implications

Earlier this year, Mr. Trump also formalized the United States withdrawal from the World Health Organization, underscoring a broader shift away from multilateral institutions in favor of bilateral approaches aligned with his administration’s interests.

Additionally, funding for international organizations such as the United Nations and NATO is slated for significant reductions. The administration argues that these entities have not aligned with the administration’s priorities and that funds can be better utilized elsewhere. 

“Pulling back from the UN and WHO is a national security win when you consider how these bloated institutions often push anti-American agendas or kowtow to China,” said Mr. Thomas. “Why fund a system that lets Beijing buy influence while we foot the bill? Long-term, a U.S.-led coalition outside these globalist clubs strengthens our security and theirs.”

Mr. Cloud, however, maintains that “our withdrawal from multilateral organizations limits our information and our influence.”

“When there is a serious international issue — a war that requires peacekeepers, a pandemic that requires a global response — we will have no influence over the international response or access to the information that informed the response,” he tells the Sun. “It also weakens our ability to credibly criticize any response if we have refused to take part in the international deliberative process.”

Retired United States Ambassador to the African Union and Tanzania, Michael Battle, concurred.

“The long-term impact is the weakening of the influence of the US and the free market, democratic West on shaping global policy,” he tells the Sun. 

The Trump team is also scaling back government-funded media efforts once thought of as tools of diplomacy, including Radio Free Europe and the Global Engagement Center. 

Proponents highlight that they are costly, inefficient, and have drifted from their core missions. Critics caution that reducing these resources could weaken the United States’ response to foreign propaganda from rivals like China, Russia, and Iran.

Holes to Be Filled

Despite proposed embassy closures, many still stress the need for key ambassadors to advance American policy. Over 40 ambassadorships in Egypt, Colombia, and Kuwait remain vacant, reflecting broader staffing issues at the State Department, where nearly 80 senior roles are unfilled. 

Slow nominations and lengthy Senate confirmations, averaging 127 days, have contributed to the delays, potentially weakening Washington’s foreign policy and national security efforts.

For one, the administration recently signaled a significant shift in Syria policy, expressing support for the the country’s new leadership, indicating that sanctions will be lifted, and even engaging with figures once linked to extremist groups. Experts point out that successfully implementing this approach will require deep regional expertise. The United States has not had an Ambassador in Damascus for over 13 years. 

The Role of Congress

These dramatic changes to American foreign policy, however, are not a guaranteed win for Mr. Trump. 

Rescinding such large amounts would require returning funds to the Treasury, potentially forcing Congress to vote on the move. Congress can mandate that funds be spent as originally allocated, which could spark contentious debates. 

“Top Democrats like those on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have screamed that merging USAID into State requires an Act of Congress, and they’re not wrong — Trump can’t just wave a pen and make it so,” Mr. Thomas explained. 

“A federal judge already slapped a restraining order on the aid freeze, citing violations of existing contracts. Trump’s clever move to have Rubio double as USAID administrator sidesteps some legal pushback, but Congress could block funding or reverse cuts.”

Yet from Mr. Battle’s purview, “the House and Senate oversight committees must step up and lead in the debate about the future direction of U S foreign policy and the budgetary requirements to ensure America’s influence in the international arena.”

Looking Ahead: A New Chapter in U.S. Foreign Policy

While the long-term effects of the Trump team’s diplomacy changes are yet to be fully understood, they undoubtedly signal a new direction in how the United States engages with the world.

“The America First approach is a gut check for a broken aid system. It prioritizes taxpayer dollars, cutting contracts that funded nonsense while Americans struggle,” Mr. Thomas asserted. 

“In 2023, we spent $68 billion — 42 percent of global aid — on programs often pushing woke nonsense that alienated partners, like African countries who felt USAID’s diversity mandates undermined their culture. Cutting this fat strengthens our soft power by showing we respect local values and prioritize results over ideology.”

Others see it differently. 

“Withdrawal from multilateral institutions reduces influence and reduces the ability to shape the global economic and political systems. The fallacy of America’s ability to go it alone is dangerously flawed,” Mr. Battle added. “Our strength is inextricably connected with our ability to maintain alliances that strengthen free market democracy.”