The Need for an Authorized State Department

Committee on Foreign Affairs

2025-04-30

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The Committee on Foreign Affairs convened to discuss the structural challenges and functional deficiencies impeding the Department of State's mission, aiming to identify solutions through comprehensive reauthorization efforts. There was a general consensus among members and witnesses regarding the critical need for a regular, statutory reauthorization of the State Department, a process that has been largely neglected since 2002 . However, significant partisan divisions emerged concerning the current administration's approach to reorganization and proposed budget cuts, with debates centered on whether these actions constitute necessary reform or harmful dismantling of vital diplomatic tools.

Need for State Department Reauthorization and Reform

The hearing emphasized a broad agreement on the necessity for regular and comprehensive reauthorization of the State Department, akin to the Department of Defense's annual process . Chairman Mast highlighted significant issues within the State Department, including its oversized structure, lack of clear mission, poor command over funds, and wasteful spending on programs such as $1.5 million for LGBTQ+ political processes in Costa Rica or a $20,000 drag show in Ecuador . He also noted that over 80% of the State Department's budget is not authorized by Congress and criticized the 2020 Afghanistan withdrawal as an "abysmal failure" . Witnesses generally supported the idea of reforms to prioritize national security, consolidate operations, and empower regional bureaus, ensuring the department aligns with national interests .

Concerns about Current Reorganization and Cuts

While acknowledging the need for reform, many members, particularly Ranking Member Meeks, voiced strong criticism of the current administration's ongoing reorganization efforts . Meeks described the changes as a "hatchet job" that lacks consultation with Congress and risks weakening U.S. national security and global standing . Witnesses, including Ms. Zeya, expressed alarm over proposed cuts to personnel and specific bureaus, such as the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) . They argued that these changes are not based on critical analysis and could severely diminish U.S. human rights and humanitarian leadership, creating vacuums that adversaries like China might fill [ 00:47:02-00:47:05 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
.

Effectiveness of Foreign Aid and Diplomacy

The discussion included a critical examination of the effectiveness and accountability of U.S. foreign aid. Chairman Mast questioned whether the significant increase in the State Department's budget from $9.5 billion to $55 billion between 2000 and 2024 has led to a five-fold increase in foreign policy effectiveness . Ambassador Jeffrey cited an Economist article questioning the results of much foreign aid beyond humanitarian and security assistance, stating that efforts to "change societies" have seen "very little success" . Ambassador Hale echoed this, referencing his experience in Pakistan where U.S. aid did not significantly change policies, contrasting it with China's Belt and Road Initiative, which also faced issues . Ms. Zeya, however, emphasized the vital role of humanitarian and development assistance in upholding U.S. security, prosperity, and global leadership, citing programs like PEPFAR and efforts to combat trafficking in persons as demonstrably successful .

Bipartisanship and Congressional Oversight

Several members underscored the importance of bipartisan collaboration for any effective and lasting State Department reauthorization . Chairman Emeritus McCaul stated that a successful reauthorization would be impossible without bipartisan support, similar to the National Defense Authorization Act . However, Democratic members, including Representative Castro, expressed concern that the administration's actions are undermining this trust and setting a precedent where congressional intent is disregarded, diminishing Congress's Article I responsibilities . There was a call for the administration to engage meaningfully with Congress and to seek input, rather than implementing changes unilaterally .

Personnel and Organizational Structure of the State Department

Discussions also focused on internal restructuring and personnel policies within the State Department. Ambassador Jeffrey suggested that the visa mission should be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, as its policy is determined by DHS, not the State Department [ 01:30:19 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Concerns were raised about the State Department's strategic planning not aligning with national security priorities and the dispersion of diplomatic activities to other agencies . Ambassador Hale emphasized the need for reforms in hiring, training, promotion, and separation processes to ensure staff have the skills for future needs and are held accountable to performance . There was also a debate on where emerging fields like cyberspace and digital policy should be housed within the State Department, with a consensus on the need for technical expertise in these global issues .

Tone of the Meeting

The meeting generally maintained a serious and deliberative tone, with members and witnesses acknowledging the profound importance of the State Department's role in U.S. foreign policy [ 00:24:17 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. However, beneath this gravity, the discussions were significantly divisive and partisan, particularly when addressing the current administration's reorganization efforts . While Democratic members accused the administration of a "wrecking ball" approach and disregarding congressional authority, Republican members defended the changes as necessary reforms to an inefficient bureaucracy [ 02:38:02-02:38:12 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Despite these sharp policy disagreements, the interactions between members and witnesses remained largely respectful, with speakers often thanking one another for their contributions and service [ 01:14:56 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. An underlying sense of urgency was palpable, stemming from the complex global challenges and the perception that effective U.S. foreign policy is more critical than ever .

Participants

Transcript

Committee on Foreign Affairs will come to order.  I ask everybody to rise.  Join me in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
?
Unknown
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you everybody for your attendance.  The purpose of this hearing today is to identify structural challenges and functional deficiencies that impede the Department of State's ability to fulfill its mission and to work to find solutions to those issues.  And I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.  As I said, I called this hearing really to establish a simple fact.   The State Department has many broken parts, and it's been in many ways a broken part of our government for many years.  It's been too big.  It's had no clear mission or definition for public diplomacy.  It has very little command and control over the dollars that it sends across the globe.  It's spent your tax dollars in ways that would have been better if the State Department just lit the money on fire in many cases.   Right now, more than 80% of the State Department is not authorized by Congress.  That includes Bureau of International Security and Non-Proliferation with a budget of $57 million and 247 employees.  The Bureau of International Organizations with a budget of $90 million and 370 employees.  The Bureau of Administration with a budget of $394 million and a staff of 700.   Now despite 80% of it not being authorized, the State Department's bureaus, offices, and programs, they continue to grow each and every year.  Last year, the State Department employed more than 80,000 people across the globe.  Between the year 2000 and the year 2024, the State Department's budget grew from roughly $9.5 billion to more than $55 billion over the course of that time.  Where did that money go?   Does our foreign policy feel like it's five times more effective as we've spent five times more dollars?  Instead, we've had a State Department with plenty of duplicative programs, but again, not a clear mission and a clear outline on how to go out there and affect the missions positively on behalf of the American people and all of our interests.  The largest operation of the State Department in any of our lifetimes was the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was an abysmal failure.
The State Department failed to plan everything from how many people would be requesting visas to how many people would be needed to process those visas and a thousand other things.  The State Department is too big and it's also unaccountable because we've not conducted a comprehensive standalone reauthorization since 2002.  It's also prioritizing the wrong things in my opinion.   That is why we saw American dollars going out the door to foreign companies, foreign countries, foreign NGOs, and foreign adversaries like the Taliban with less oversight than it takes the average American citizen to get a driver's license at the DMV.  Don't take my word for it.  Listen to what the State Department's funded with your tax dollars.  And many of you heard me give lists of hundreds and hundreds of items.  I'll list just a couple.  $14 million in   cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border, $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia, $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, non-binary, and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process, $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador, $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.  I would challenge anybody in here to refute that American tax dollars were not spent in this way.   I don't see anybody refuting that.  I have hundreds of more examples of these, if not thousands.  We have proof that these things happened.  We have the documents, we have the photos, we have the receipts.  These things are too stupid for us to try and make up, really.   But this is not about scoring political points with each of those, otherwise I'd give the full list.  These programs were funded with American tax dollars because somewhere, some person down the line at the State Department thought that programs like that were actually public diplomacy.  This spending was not lifesaving.  It didn't make American citizens visiting those countries safer or American businesses operating there more prosperous or a better partner.
It didn't bring any of the countries in which the money was spent closer to America.  In fact, many of these countries actively opposed what the State Department was actually doing.  Yet State Department officials thought this was public diplomacy and exactly what America should be doing.  Again, I personally disagree with that definition of public diplomacy, but we should have this debate   And we should figure out what American tax dollars should and should not be used for abroad.  And that's what the debate about a State Department reauthorization is all about.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up