Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a new proposed organizational chart today reflecting major structural changes to the State Department. The reorganization abolishes the most senior department position dedicated to human rights and civilian security, eliminates key equity and global accountability offices, and appears to complete the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The changes have not yet been implemented, and may change in the coming weeks and months. But if these changes are put in place, they will reflect a significant shift in how the United States engages with the world.
At bottom, the proposed restructuring appears intended to sideline rights-related offices and the funding they provide (several of the offices to be eliminated administer significant grant assistance) while further empowering regional, as opposed to functional, bureaus. According to Rubio’s statement: “Region-specific functions will be consolidated to increase functionality, redundant offices will be removed, and non-statutory programs that are misaligned with America’s core national interests will cease to exist.”
Though the changes to the department are significantly less extensive than many had feared – based in part on reports of cuts suggested by the Office of Management and Budget – they still appear to target some statutorily mandated positions. It remains unclear whether the administration plans to ask Congress to eliminate these positions, such as mandated ambassadors or envoys who may lack a home within the new structure.
More broadly, the cuts appear to be largely motivated by ideological considerations. Rubio’s accusation that the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), for example, “has become a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against ‘anti-woke’ leaders,” and his allegation that the department “occasionally veers into outright hostility to American interests,” come perilously close to flouting longstanding norms that the secretary of state and U.S. diplomats should refrain from overtly political acts. With the notable exception of Secretary Mike Pompeo during President Donald Trump’s first term, past secretaries had largely adhered to this standard of conduct.
Key changes if this proposal is implemented in full include:
Bureaus, Offices or Positions Eliminated:
- Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO)
- Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR)
- The Director of the Foreign Service (FSI Director)
- Office of Global Women’s Issues (GWI)
- Office of Global Criminal Justice (GCJ)
Bureaus Opened or Renamed:
- Emerging Threats (ET): a new bureau under the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security
- Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) renamed to Democracy, Human Rights, and Religious Freedom
Bureaus and Offices Merged:
- Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance (AVC) merges with International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN)
- Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP) merged into Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)
Foreign Assistance Restructured:
- The Office of Foreign Assistance (F) is to be rebranded as “Coordinator” for Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Affairs, with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Religious Freedom (formerly DRL) and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) reporting to the new “F” position.
- Non-security foreign aid will be handled by each regional bureau rather than centralized offices.
While a number of these changes are concerning, it has also long been true that the State Department bureaucracy could benefit from real reforms. To that end, the bipartisan State Department Reform Commission, established by Congress in 2023 (and fully funded in 2024), was tasked with examining “the changing nature of diplomacy and the ways in which the department can modernize to advance the interests of the United States.” And some close to the department have identified what they view as chronic problems in need of reform, such as outdated legal authorities, fragmented decision-making processes, and a rigid personnel system. But the question with any set of proposed reforms is whether they will reinvigorate the department in a way that strengthens America’s diplomatic capacity rather than diminishing it.
To understand what just happened – and what may lie ahead – it’s worth looking back at how the Department of State has evolved over the past four administrations.
Obama Administration: The Globalist Framework
Under President Barack Obama, the State Department operated with a broad mandate and six Under Secretaries overseeing key portfolios: Political Affairs, Economic Growth, Arms Control, Public Diplomacy, Management, and Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights (known as “J” in bureaucratic parlance).
The structure emphasized:
- Robust human rights and democracy work, housed under J and implemented by several bureaus with their own unique specializations
- Dedicated offices for global women’s issues, civil rights, humanitarian response, and the global AIDS campaign
- Increased emphasis on functional diplomacy—launching initiatives focused on economic statecraft and creating new bureaus for Energy Resources and Conflict & Stabilization Operations
Trump Administration (First Term): Attempts to Shrink and Reorient
During Trump’s first term, reorganization efforts were signaled but inconsistently implemented. Many leadership roles remained vacant or filled in an acting capacity. While the traditional structure of six Under Secretaries remained largely intact on paper, several programs were deprioritized or defunded in practice. In short, the first Trump administration reshaped the department not through formal reorganization, but through quieter means: attrition, vacancy, and sidelining.
Key developments included:
- A shift away from democracy promotion, public diplomacy, and climate diplomacy
- Integrating special envoys into regional and functional bureaus
- Consolidation attempts that foreshadowed future restructuring
Biden Administration: Attempts to Restore and Expand
President Joe Biden inherited a State Department damaged by his predecessor’s neglect, but his administration largely restored and expanded upon Obama-era priorities. The department aimed to reaffirm its global leadership role, with a renewed commitment to multilateralism, equity, and institutional resilience.
The Biden-era structure featured:
- A revitalized Civilian Security undersecretariat with renewed focus on democracy and human rights
- New offices, including the Office of Diversity and Inclusion (S/ODI), and a more empowered Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI)
- Elevation of cyber issues through the creation of the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy (CDP) as a formal part of the department in 2022
- Integration of Global Health Security and Diplomacy (GHSD) into the organizational leadership structure
The structure signaled a commitment to inclusive governance, multilateralism, and institution-building, though these objectives were complicated by the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack and Israel’s ensuing war in Gaza.
Trump Administration (Second Term): A New Reorg—and New Priorities (2025)
That brings us to today’s news. The April 2025 reorganization chart signals a much more assertive restructuring effort.
Key changes include:
Elimination of the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights (J):
- Offices previously in J that are not being eliminated are being placed under a Coordinator for Foreign and Humanitarian Assistance (F), an expansion of the role of the current F, which as of today denotes the Director of Foreign Assistance
- The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) is renamed the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Religious Freedom, which incorporates the previously independent Office of Religious Freedom
- The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL) is moved from under the former J to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security (T)
Removals or consolidations:
- Eliminate the Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI)
- Eliminate the Office of Diversity and Inclusion (S/ODI)
- Eliminate the Office of Global Criminal Justice (OCJ)
- Merge the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons (TIP) into the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM)
- Consolidate the Office of Global Health Security and Diplomacy (GHSD) under the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment (E)
- Consolidate the Office of the Ombudsman (S/O) with the Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR) to form the Office of Civil Rights and Ombudsman (S/OCR)
- Rename the Bureau of Counterterrorism and Countering Violent Extremism to just the Bureau of Counterterrorism (CT)
- Rename Information Resource Management (IRM) to Diplomatic Technology (DT)
- Merge the bureau of Arms Control, Deterrence, and Stability (ADS) and the bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN) into the bureau of Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Stability (ANS) under the Under Secretary of Arms Control and International Security (T)
Additions and elevations:
- Office of the Spokesperson (S/SPOX) as a direct report to the Secretary
- Emerging Threats (ET) bureau led by an Assistant Secretary reporting to T
- Office of Global Acquisition (GA) (Procurement Exec)
In addition, Rubio’s emphasis on regional bureaus as the solution to bureaucratic logjams and inefficiencies is somewhat puzzling – not because regional bureaus are inherently less capable than their functional counterparts, but because they tend to already exercise more influence than the functional bureaus within the department, a source of recurring tension (there has long been debate on whether prioritization of bilateral and regional relationships, as opposed to cross-cutting challenges, best suits U.S. interests). Many of the department’s inefficiencies may have more to do with processes and procedures than with structure, raising important questions about whether this reorganization is truly designed to improve the functionality and efficiency of the department.
Taken together, these changes deprioritize human rights, equity, health, and civilian protection, circumscribing the remit of U.S. diplomacy and sidelining core American values.
Why It Matters
The structure of the State Department is more than a bureaucratic diagram – it reflects how America sees its role in the world. Each administration’s organizational chart encodes its theory of diplomacy: what challenges it takes seriously, what values it promotes abroad, which priorities will be backed with institutional and financial resources, and who gets a seat at the table.
The Trump administration’s latest reorganization is not just a reshuffle. It’s a realignment of diplomatic priorities, one that seems set to constrain U.S. soft power, reduce institutional capacity on human rights, and centralize messaging under fewer leadership nodes.
At the same time, there are some aspects of the proposal that could increase efficiency without sacrificing diplomatic power, if implemented well. For example, as a general principle, absorbing some of the department’s many standalone offices into existing bureaus may be a sensible structural reform that could streamline reporting lines, reduce redundancy, and make offices easier to staff and manage.
Notably, the proposed reorganization slightly diverges from both the reported OMB suggestions for cuts for FY2026, which, for example, sought to eliminate the Africa Bureau, and a purported earlier draft of the reorg memo that called for replacing regional bureaus with multi-regional “corps” and closing large numbers of diplomatic missions around the world. This may suggest that Rubio is staking out bureaucratic ground early before budget decisions are finalized to defend at least some parts of the department.
In another departure from earlier memos, Rubio indicated that each regional bureau will be responsible for administering and programming humanitarian aid, a function that USAID performed in cooperation with PRM. The draft reorganization memo conceived of the creation of a Bureau for Humanitarian Affairs, which presumably would have absorbed remaining USAID employees. In the absence of a dedicated humanitarian operation at State, it is unclear what will happen to those employees, or the functions they performed.
What Comes Next
Looking ahead, the devil, of course, is in the details. An org chart alone doesn’t tell us:
- How offices will be staffed – or hollowed out;
- Whether expertise and institutional memory will be retained or lost;
- Whether the Office of Civil Rights and Ombudsman will have the independence and authority its predecessors were afforded;
- How embassies will be staffed and resourced around the world.
Congress has a vital oversight role to play. It should press for transparency in implementation – budget allocations, personnel decisions, and internal directives – and consider using appropriations, confirmation hearings, and legislative mandates to ensure that vital functions like human rights, equity, and crisis response are not sidelined under the banner of streamlining.
This moment isn’t just about structure – it’s about strategy, values, and whether American diplomacy will be capable of rising to a volatile global moment.
Editor’s note: This piece is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions