Federal Judge Blocks State Department Reorganization Plan

A federal judge has temporarily halted the U.S. State Department's proposed reorganization plan, which aimed to eliminate approximately 15% of its domestic workforce and close 132 offices. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the injunction, citing the need for Congressional approval for such significant changes.

In April 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a comprehensive plan to restructure the State Department, aligning it with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda. The proposal included reducing domestic staff by about 1,600 positions and consolidating 734 bureaus and offices into 602. Key functions, such as African affairs and democracy promotion, were to remain, but several offices focused on global women's issues and diversity were slated for elimination or scaling back. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was to be dismantled, with its functions integrated into a newly created office focused on foreign and humanitarian affairs.

The reorganization plan faced immediate opposition from career diplomats and the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the labor union representing Foreign Service employees. AFSA expressed concerns that the cuts would weaken U.S. diplomatic capacity and influence. In a statement, AFSA emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong diplomatic corps to address global challenges effectively.

In May 2025, labor unions and other groups filed a legal challenge against the proposed cuts, leading to an injunction issued by Judge Illston. Despite this, the State Department informed Congress of a deeper reorganization, including more staff and program eliminations than originally indicated. Rubio also directed U.S. embassies to dismiss remaining personnel from USAID, planning to consolidate foreign aid oversight under the State Department. The Trump administration argued that Rubio’s actions were independent and not subject to the president’s directive, but Judge Illston disagreed, emphasizing the need for government transparency.

The proposed reorganization has significant implications for the federal workforce, public services, and the broader economy. Critics argue that the cuts to human rights and democracy promotion offices could undermine U.S. influence and leadership on the global stage. Representative Gregory W. Meeks, Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expressed concerns that the reorganization would leave the State Department ill-equipped to advance U.S. national security interests.

Supporters of the plan, including some Republicans, argue that the reorganization is necessary to modernize the State Department and align it with current foreign policy priorities. Senator Jim Risch praised the initiative, stating that it would help the U.S. tackle foreign policy challenges more effectively.

This is not the first time the State Department has undergone significant reorganization. However, the scale and focus of the current plan, particularly the emphasis on reducing programs related to human rights and democracy promotion, mark a departure from previous efforts. The reorganization reflects a broader policy trend prioritizing national interest over expansive human rights initiatives.

The Trump administration has appealed Judge Illston's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the legal battle continues, the future of the State Department's reorganization remains uncertain, with potential long-term effects on U.S. diplomacy and international relations.