Featured

It’s Time for the State Department to Put America First

Ziya H.

13 May 2025 — 4 min read

The U.S. Department of State, established in 1789, is the oldest federal executive department, created to execute the foreign policy of the newly formed American republic. On July 21 of that year, President George Washington signed the act that transformed the Department of Foreign Affairs into the Department of State, making it the first official federal agency. Thomas Jefferson, freshly returned from diplomatic service in France, became its first Secretary.

The department's original mission was monumental: to protect the fragile republic from the ruinous entanglements of European power politics—particularly the upheaval of the French Revolution and the larger conflict between France and Britain. In that chaotic world of monarchies, revolutions, and empires, America embraced strategic detachment. Despite their philosophical differences, both the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans agreed on one core principle: American foreign policy should be guided not by ideology, but by prudence and national interest.

Much has changed since then: the scope of U.S. power, the nature of global politics, and the structure of diplomacy. But with these changes has come confusion—often deliberate—about what the State Department exists to do. Too often today, it is viewed either as a liberal missionary force or a bloated bureaucracy more concerned with process than outcomes. Neither view serves the country.

In truth, the Department of State should be one thing above all: a strategic tool for securing the interests of the American people in an increasingly multipolar world. That begins with clarity: what are America’s national interests? Not aspirational goals or ideological dreams, but tangible interests—those without which American prosperity and security are endangered. From there, foreign policy must be executed with consistency and wisdom.

Yes, America was founded on liberty. But liberty as a governing ideal cannot be separated from the conditions that allow it to flourish. And those conditions do not exist everywhere. Trying to export them—especially through pressure or force—has too often proven destabilizing, not liberating.

Over the last several decades, the balance between American ideals and American interests has collapsed. Foreign policy has grown increasingly ideological, with democracy promotion and human rights activism prioritized above strategic realities. The result has not been more liberty or better governance. Instead, it has drained U.S. credibility, burned diplomatic capital, and distracted leaders from the arenas that matter most.

Take Asia. As a maritime superpower with deep regional alliances and global trade stakes, the U.S. has a vital interest in the Asia-Pacific, where China’s ambitions continue to grow. Yet Washington remains bogged down in legacy entanglements in Europe, particularly with NATO allies reluctant to meet their own defense obligations. While Brussels dithers, Beijing expands—from the South China Sea to the Red Sea.

Or consider the Middle East. The idea that Saudi Arabia can be transformed into a liberal democracy through diplomatic pressure is not only naive—it’s counterproductive. Real progress comes from engagement rooted in shared interests, not moralistic posturing. Stability and cooperation with traditional allies like Riyadh offer a more realistic path toward gradual reform.

Despite the expansion of the State Department’s workforce and infrastructure over the past century, effectiveness has not kept pace. From just 1,228 employees in 1900 to over 15,000 by 2000, and from 41 diplomatic posts to 168 by 2004, the department has ballooned—but results have stagnated. Size is not strategy.

This is why a major reorganization is overdue. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasized that the goal isn’t simply cutting costs, though that is a welcome benefit. The real mission is strategic realignment: simplifying decision-making, consolidating overlapping offices, and bringing moral imperatives in line with geopolitical reality.

Currently, the State Department is a maze of regional desks, thematic bureaus, and duplicated task forces. A single memo may need to pass through half a dozen desks before it reaches the Secretary. This is not diligence—it’s dysfunction.

The proposed reform would consolidate 132 offices, many focused on human rights and democracy promotion. These goals would not vanish but would be recontextualized as part of a broader, regional understanding. Counterterrorism, religious tolerance, and regional balance in the Middle East require different tools than economic development and narcotrafficking in Central America.

This is not the unipolar world of the 1990s. America now faces active strategic competition from China, Russia, Iran, and a host of opportunistic powers. This calls for clear-eyed realism, not grand idealism. The goal is not to win hearts and minds through lectures, but to build durable, interest-based relationships that protect U.S. security and, where possible, foster mutual aspirations.

This shift does not mean abandoning values. In fact, it means understanding that values thrive best when they are paired with strength, clarity, and example. A stable Middle East, a balanced Indo-Pacific, a cooperative Western Hemisphere—these are not only strategic goals, they are platforms from which American ideals can shine. Democracy cannot be imposed; it must be cultivated.

To fulfill its original mission—protecting and advancing the republic in a dangerous and complex world—the State Department must evolve. This reorganization is a long-needed step toward a foreign policy that is more coherent, more strategic, and more honest. American power remains a force for good—but only when wielded with precision and humility.

Promoting a well-calibrated foreign policy does not mean sacrificing ideals. It means rooting them in reality. When diplomacy becomes the meeting point of values and interests, principle and pragmatism, the result is not compromise—but maturity. And in a century marked by ideological chaos and geopolitical fragmentation, maturity may be the rarest and most essential virtue of all.

Sources: