House Foreign Affairs members spar over State Department reorganization and proposed aid cuts

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that he has reorganized U.S. diplomatic and development tools to prioritize "the national interest," and that he folded many USAID functions under the State Department to drive policy from embassies and regional bureaus.

Rubio said, "every dollar we spend and every action we take has to have measurable outcomes that deliver for the American people. They have to either make our country safer, or they have to make our country stronger, or they have to help make our country more prosperous." He emphasized moving decision authority toward embassies so Washington layers would not slow urgent action.

The committee hearing, called to review the State Department's fiscal 2026 request, turned into repeated exchanges about the scope and legality of the reorganization and about large proposed reductions to foreign affairs spending. Chairman Brian Mast framed the changes as long-overdue accountability measures and praised the administration for canceling what he described as programs that did not serve U.S. security. "Since day one," Mast said, "you've taken bold action to clean house, to restore accountability, to slash waste, and to put America and Americans first." He cited rapid growth in the department's budget over recent decades.

Democrats questioned the process and effects. Ranking Member Meeks told Rubio that the secretary arrived "months after the fact" on some decisions and accused the administration of withholding information and ignoring committee oversight. Meeks said the dismantling of programs and replacement of career employees with political appointees has weakened the department's experience and global reach.

Rubio defended the changes as operational necessities for a fast-moving world, arguing that previous approval chains required up to 40 signoffs and could stop action for months. He said some USAID contracts were "stupid and outrageous" and that bringing assistance under embassy control would better align programs with on-the-ground priorities.

Several members asked how permanent statutory reauthorization would fit the reorganization. Rubio said he preferred statutory reauthorization to lock in the structure and called for working with the committee to make any reorganization enduring and subject to congressional input.

Discussion points at the hearing included whether folding USAID under State would improve accountability and the risk that cutting or restructuring aid and development bureaus could reduce U.S. capacity in humanitarian response, health programs and democracy promotion. Members raised concerns about personnel changes, the loss of specialized offices and the legal requirement to consult Congress on major reorganizations.

The committee did not vote on any measures at the hearing. Rubio committed to providing a formal congressional notification of the final reorganization plan and to consult lawmakers further; lawmakers on both sides said they expect statutory reauthorization work in the coming months.

Ending: Members signaled continued oversight. Democrats said they would press for statutory safeguards and oversight language in any reauthorization; Republicans said they would support permanent changes that enshrine the administration's stated focus on measurable national-interest outcomes.