[Salon] National security risks behind a wave of cuts at the State Department

Guest:	Ret. Ambassador Gordon Gray
Title:	Kuwait Professor of Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University
Summary:	As the U.S. faces rising global threats, a new warning from national security leaders is raising alarms at home. The National Security Leaders for America (NSL4A) say recent layoffs at the State Department, impacting over 2,000 positions, could do “lasting harm” to U.S. foreign policy and national security. The group says rebuilding the diplomatic corps will require more than just hiring — it will take a generational investment in talent, training, and trust.

The Federal Drive with Terry Gerton provides expert insights on current events in the federal community. Read more interviews to keep up with daily news and analysis that affect the federal workforce. Reach out to Terry and the Federal Drive producers with feedback and story ideas at FederalDrive@federalnewsnetwork.com.

Interview transcript:

Terry Gerton As we speak today, we are looking in the rear-view mirror, if you will, at the State Department’s reductions in force and other staff reductions. You’re part of a group of over 1,200 senior diplomatic officials who have expressed concern about the State Departments’ restructuring and staffing. What are the basic issues that you and this group are putting forward?

Gordon Gray I think that the most important issue is the national security of the United States of America. And the question that I believe the people who implemented these cuts so recklessly did not pose to themselves is really the question that Secretary Rubio said would guide, and should guide, State Department decisions and policies going forward, he said this in his remarks to State Department employees on his first full day on the job when they welcomed him in the C Street lobby. And what he said was that the decisions to be made, the questions to guide those decisions should be, do they make the United States stronger? Do they make the United States safer? And do they make the United States more prosperous? And I think when we look at all of these cuts and how they were, in many cases, very arbitrarily implemented, the answer, unfortunately, to all three questions is no. I can give you some very specific examples. One is the cutbacks of about 20% in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Now, this is the bureau that, as the assistant secretary in Trump’s first administration, in other words, a Trump nominee, wrote in the Washington Post on July 22nd, this is the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, I and R, is the entity in the intelligence community that spoke out against the invasion of Iraq in 2002, they explained what the downsides would be. That was just one example she used in her op-ed. But when you’re cutting off an independent voice like that, there’s no question that the quality of intelligence, and therefore the quality of policy, is going to suffer. Another example is eliminating the Office of Visa Fraud and Prevention. Why, especially for an administration that professes to be so concerned about illegal immigration, why are we cutting off the Office of Visa Fraud? We want to make sure our visa system has real integrity to it. So those are just two examples, I mean, there are several others that I could give, but those are two examples.

Terry Gerton You yourself served in senior State Department positions and as an ambassador. Are there any issues here that you would see impacting the daily operations of, say, an embassy?

Gordon Gray Certainly. That’s a very good question and I’m glad you realize the sacrifices that people overseas serving our country make, civilians as well as military. Like I said, one of the big responsibilities of any embassy is granting visas and making sure that process goes well, and as I just mentioned, the Office of Visa Fraud Prevention has been eliminated. Another office that was completely eliminated is the Office Of Casualty Assistance. This is the office that provides support for the families of State Department employees who have died in the line of duty overseas. I’ve had far too many of my friends and colleagues die serving their country. And now their families no longer receive the support because of these budget cuts and, in my opinion, irrational firings and eliminations.

Terry Gerton I’m speaking with Ambassador Gordon Gray. He’s the Kuwait Professor of Gulf and Arabian Peninsula Affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. So sir, let me ask you, there are still open litigation questions about some of the administration’s downsizing efforts. But assuming that these hold with the State Department, how long might it take to build a pipeline back of folks with foreign service expertise?

Gordon Gray It’s going to take several years. And that gets back to the point I was making about the randomness of many of the reductions in force. People were identified for reduction in force based on where they happened to be assigned on May 29th. So if you were a senior officer who spoke Mandarin Chinese fluently, and happened to be assigned in the wrong office at the wrong time, you were identified to be fired, even if you had a thoroughly outstanding performance record. And that’s just not the way to make policy. Looking ahead, I’m also very concerned that young people coming into the State Department are going to be dissuaded from following careers of public service. We have far too many challenges globally right now that we cannot afford not to have the very best, the very most committed, working for the American people. And I’ve already had students who saw the RIFs coming, they left the State Department because they didn’t want to take their chances with an arbitrary system. It pained me to do so, but my advice to them was, you’re doing the right thing.

Terry Gerton Well, you mentioned the challenging international security environment. As you’ve looked at these plans, are there particular regions or areas or topical areas where we have ceded ground through these reductions?

Gordon Gray Well, I think across the board where we’ve ceded ground is in reductions or complete eliminations in programs that promote U.S. soft power, and those are beyond the immediate scope of the State Department reorganization, but they include the virtual elimination of the Agency for International Development, the virtual elimination of Voice of America and other foreign broadcasting elements of the U.S. government, and, no surprise, the Chinese are filling the void. They’re filling the void gleefully, and that just doesn’t serve American interests.

Terry Gerton How would you like to see Congress get involved?

Gordon Gray Well, I’d like to see Congress get involved. That’s the problem. Congress has ceded the power of the purse. They have rolled over, is I think perhaps the most polite term I can think of, in reversing course on programs that they had supported, that they had voted for, that had bipartisan support. Secretary Rubio is a prime example of that. If you compare what Senator Rubio said in support of a vigorous human rights policy, the importance of soft power, the importance of development assistance, those are all 179 degrees, if not 180 degrees, opposed to what the policies he’s implementing now.