House committee questions State Department reorganization after 1,300 layoffs

The House Foreign Affairs Committee spent several hours on May 29 questioning the State Department's reorganization and a reduction-in-force that department leaders say affected roughly 1,300 positions.

Chairman Mast opened the hearing by saying the session's purpose was "to examine the progress made regarding the reorganization of the Department of State and the role that the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources is in ensuring effective management of resources and operations within the department." The deputy secretary, Michael Regas, testified for the administration.

The committee heard a steady stream of concern from Democrats and some Republicans about how the personnel actions were carried out and the consequences for institutional knowledge. Ranking Member Gregory Meeks said the firings created "the largest brain drain in the State Department's modern history" and pressed Regas for documentation of the strategic analysis behind the cuts. Lawmakers repeatedly asked for written analyses, distribution lists, and the workforce comments the department collected.

Regas described the goal as aligning the department with the administration's foreign policy priorities and said the reorganization aimed to consolidate or eliminate roughly 45% of domestic offices and implement a 15% workforce reduction based on a departmental assessment. He said the department used Office of Personnel Management procedures, competitive areas and merit-based scoring to determine which positions were retained.

Members challenged the department's timing and implementation. Several members said employees who had recently taken new assignments or had been overseas received termination notices referencing prior assignments as of the May 29 effective date of the reorganization. Representative Castro asked whether the department would allow those employees to remain in their new positions if the law permits; Regas replied he would consult legal counsel and act in accordance with statutory requirements.

Lawmakers also asked who developed the reorganization plan. Regas said undersecretaries and senior bureau officials—most career officers—participated in the assessment; he disputed claims the plan was written by "fewer than 10 people," saying senior leaders across the department provided input.

The exchange underscored bipartisan concerns about process and oversight: members asked for the written national-security rationales, cost-benefit analyses and the records of workforce input that the department used to justify the staffing reductions. Regas said he would provide documents that could be shared with the committee and repeated that the intent was to "empower our ambassadors and diplomats in the field" and to concentrate management functions in the management bureau.

The hearing ended with Regas offering to continue briefings and to provide documents requested by the committee; members signaled they would submit follow-up questions in writing.