House Foreign Affairs members press State Department on reorganization, layoffs and loss of China expertise

At a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, lawmakers pressed the State Department’s under secretary about the administration’s reorganization that eliminated offices and affected nearly 1,300 employees, asking whether the changes will hinder U.S. diplomacy and language capabilities critical to countering China.

Committee members said the cuts and office closures risked removing subject-matter experts and undermining the United States’ ability to engage in Asia. “We cannot say that we are serious about competing with China when our restructuring means cutting 1,300 employees and rescinding almost 9,000,000,000 in spending on foreign affairs,” Representative Stanton said during his questioning.

The under secretary defended the changes as deliberate and intended to remove redundancies. “It was methodical. It was considered. It was conducted by engaging senior leadership, at the undersecretary level that is in both career and political. . . more than 650 comments went into the consideration,” the under secretary said, adding the eliminated offices’ functions have been integrated into remaining bureaus.

Lawmakers pressed for specifics about language and regional capacity. Several members asked how many Mandarin speakers were affected and how long it takes to replace language-trained staff; the under secretary said the department still maintains Mandarin capability but did not provide counts or replacement timelines and offered to follow up with written answers.

Members also pointed to personnel and budget figures cited in the hearing. A lawmaker said the State Department employs about 75,000 people, including roughly 13,000 foreign service officers and 11,000 civil service staff, and that salaries and benefits total more than $16 billion annually; the under secretary did not dispute that characterization during the hearing but emphasized that the reorganization seeks more efficient use of resources.

Republicans and Democrats on the committee expressed different emphases: some argued the changes were necessary to align the department with the administration’s priorities and to eliminate inefficiencies; others warned the cuts had been rapid, risked losing institutional knowledge and could create openings that geopolitical competitors would exploit. The under secretary agreed to provide additional information requested by members, including staffing and language-training details.

The session closed with the under secretary reiterating a commitment to work with the committee to provide requested data and to explain how functions continue after office eliminations.