The foreign policy world is still making sense of the Trump Administration’s massive cuts to the US State Department last week. Under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, nearly 1500 employees–most of them civil servants–lose their jobs. In some ways, this isn’t surprising, as Trump began his second term with a massive, Elon Musk-led, gutting of the federal workforce. But it’s still catching some by surprise, given Rubio’s reported clash with Musk over these reductions and the (maybe naive) belief that Rubio would be a more responsible official than the rest of the Trump cabinet.

Given this, it’s worth trying to figure out what’s behind the cuts. Is there some sort of attempt to push right-wing ideologies, as the Guardian argued? Or is it the sort of indiscriminate firing that Musk pursued?

Who was cut?

First, we need to look at who was cut.

I haven’t seen an official listing, so this post may be updated as more information comes out. Most of what I initially saw came from LinkedIn posts, and there have been a few news articles with “highlights.”

Rubio notified Congress of planned reductions in May. This included he Economic Growth, Energy and Environment division, the Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Affairs division, the Management division, the Political Affairs division, the Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs office, the State Secretary Marco Rubio’s office, and the Arms Control and International Security division. Meanwhile, the divisions of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) and Population, Refugees and Migration were to be “streamlined” and placed under the Undersecretary for Foreign Assistance and Humanitarian Affairs, limiting their independence. And offices dealing with the United Nations and arms control were going to be reorganized, although observers said it was unclear what the point of the reorganization was.

Rubio has not been forthright about the reasoning behind the cuts, even internally.

As the cuts came into effect we got more information. I’ve seen posts noting the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations and the office dealing with terrorism prevention were basically eliminated. The office dealing with multilateral disarmament was cut. Nearly all of the Department’s cybersecurity work will end. The aforementioned office on migration faced massive cuts, while the office of Intelligence and Research–State’s intelligence analysis division–also lost personnel.

There were other lower-visibility cuts. This included the office that handled policy coordination throughout the Department, and the Office of Casualty Assistance dealt with cuts. And there were surprising cuts, including the office dealing with Israel and Palestine and the office dealing with human trafficking, the former surprising given the prominence of Israel in Trump’s foreign policy and the latter given the focus on human trafficking by Trump’s evangelical allies.

I have not heard of any cuts to the Office of International Religious Freedom, an issue Trump ostensibly championed in his first term, gaining him the support of religious freedom activists despite his many stances contrary to this freedom (much to the chagrin of former allies of this movement, like me).

What is going on?

So what is going on? Rubio has not been forthright about the reasoning behind the cuts, even internally.

There is some evidence that this reflects the right-wing orientation of Trump’s foreign policy. Trump appointees have reportedly pushed back on programs that did not align with their “America First” orientation. The cuts to offices dealing with international cooperation and human rights certainly fit.

This is the combination of Trumpian ideology and Rubio being in over his head.

A lot of the cuts, though, are as random and scattershot as Elon Musk’s efforts. Why cut offices that improve efficiency, like policy coordination? Why cut intelligence analysis? Why cut the ability of the State Department to care for employees overseas?

And if this does reflect right-wing beliefs, why cut the office on human trafficking? Why not beef up State’s ability to intervene in the Israel-Hamas war?

What I think: this is the combination of Trumpian ideology and Rubio being in over his head.

The MAGA true believers in the Administration likely pushed for State to reorient its mission in line with their priorities. Rubio is not one of those true believers, but he is ambitious and wants to keep this job. So he’s trying to satisfy them. But he doesn’t have the political heft or managerial experience to do so in a way that would keep the State Department functioning.

I’ll be honest that I hoped he would distinguish himself in this role, pushing back on the “burn it all down” attitude among some others in the Administration. I may not agree with all his hawkish stances, but I appreciated some of them–such as his previously tough stance on Russia and Syria’s now deposed dictator. And he was consistent. I thought he may find a way to subtly push these views into Trump’s foreign policy, which is anything but consistent.

Unfortunately, he seems to be prioritizing his position over his convictions. So the cuts have been chaotic, despite his attempt to distinguish himself from Musk.

I’m not sure if that’s more reassuring than other possibilities.