Still with me? We’re at Chapter 6 of Project 2025: The Department of State.
The preamble to this section boils down to: the State Department should be purged of left-wing staffers. Then we get a paragraph of history and context (p. 172) including some numbers: “Today, the Department of State has almost 80,000 total employees (including 13,517 foreign service employees and 11,683 civil service employees) in 275 embassies, consulates, and other posts around the world.”
Overseas posts are where many “foreign nationals seeking temporary or permanent entrance” to the US make first contact. State “also supports US citizens and businesses in other nations” and organizes humanitarian assistance programs.
It is rendered inefficient and ineffective, P25 thinks, because it is trying to be a shadow government, resisting presidential direction.
Comment: well, the Department of State works for the nation, not for the president. The whole point of having a national foreign policy is so other countries have some idea where they stand and what to expect from the US as a nation.
Back to the document, which goes directly into How To Pack State With DJT Picks. “No one in a leadership position on the morning of January 20 should hold that position at the end of the day (p. 173).”
Next come recommendations for a deep analysis of every function of the State Department to align it with the new administration’s priorities, freezing any ongoing negotiations pending review. “The quality of this review is more important than speed (p. 174).” That means it’s highly unlike to be finished within DJT’s term, much less before midterms. “The next Administration should also move to withdraw from treaties that have been under Senate consideration for 20 years or more … (p. 175).” Hard to argue with that one.
Progressives, this is another place where our side could take initiative and try to assume a leadership position. Transparency about costs and risks goes a long way with voters. Which foreign posts could be closed, how much staff reduction achieved, how much money saved, with what effect on our relationships with other countries.
On page 177, there’s discussion of State’s role in legal immigration with demands for visa reciprocity and sanctions, a restructured refugee admission system, and third-country agreements.
Then we move on to a detailed discussion of the five countries P25 considers imminent threats: China, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and North Korea (p. 179). It’s fair to say those five countries do pose security and/or economic threats to the US, though two of them are not exactly playing the same sport as the others.
China, summarized: they’re Communists!
Iran, summarized: they’re Islamic fanatics!
Venezuela, summarized: they’re Communists!
Russia, summarized: Ukraine isn’t that important so we shouldn’t spend any more than we must in order to give the appearance of supporting the aggrieved party (Ukraine) without antagonizing Russia.
North Korea: “The DPRK must not be permitted to profit from its blatant violations of international commitments or to threaten other nations with nuclear blackmail (p. 183).” Is this a dog-whistle to the Let’s Bomb Kim crowd?
Next up, Mexico, “a national security disaster (p. 183).” P25 considers that Mexico is being run by criminal cartels and should be liberated. Is this a dog-whistle to the Let’s Invade Mexico crowd? Possibly, with the China-Mexico fentanyl connection a stated priority for unnamed “other Western Hemisphere partners (p. 183).”
The hemisphere strategy would also include efforts to move manufacturing and industry from China to Central and South America and to “develop a hemisphere-focused energy policy (p. 184).”
The US should also get further involved (or re-involved) in the Middle East and North Africa, with the highest priorities being to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capability, support Israel, suck up to Saudi Arabia, and woo Turkiye. Plus we need a new Middle East security pact and should work harder to suppress Islamist movements in Africa. (p. 185) Is that a dog-whistle to the regime-change crowd?
In sub-Saharan Africa, the US should “shift strategic focus from assistance to growth” and “counter malign Chinese activity on the continent (p. 186).” Also stamp out terrorism, deepen relations with countries that aren’t actively hostile to America, and stop objecting to African nations killing their LGBTQ+ citizens (p. 187).
Europe gets a brief summary. South and Central Asia are most specifically addressed in developing “the Quad, a cooperative framework including the US, India, Japan, and Australia (p. 189).” The Arctic is given a more detailed discussion, noting the interests of China and Russia plus the possible accession to NATO of Finland and Sweden. The US Coast Guard and Navy should “continue to expand their fleets, including planned icebreaker acquisitions, to assure Arctic access for the United States and other friendly actors (p.190).”
International organizations are discussed at pages 190-193, with P25 congratulating the first DJT administration for withdrawing support from various education, rights, relief, and health bodies, thus damaging women’s healthcare access and LGBTQ+ safety worldwide.
Abortion has come up several times in this chapter. How is abortion an appropriate concern for the US Department of State? Why invest taxpayer dollars in efforts to ban abortion, limit contraceptive access, and otherwise influence foreign citizens’ healthcare choices? How are some other nation’s birthrate, family planning policy, or divorce law any of our business, P25? Especially since you don’t want immigrants from those countries?
On page 193 we finally get to a reorganization strategy. Actionable suggestions include consolidating foreign assistance authorities (p. 194) and restoring “international broadcasting infrastructure” (p. 195) which seems likely to wash out any savings from the first thing. On page 196: “The State Department should work with allies to establish a clear framework of enforceable norms for actions in cyberspace … .” I think they mean we should use cyber warfare.
Made it through. Again, we have a lot of wish-list, mostly free of workable suggestions in the smaller-government category.
Takeaway: this is mostly “everyone should only act as directed by the president.” Yay dictatorship.