The Trump administration is reportedly contemplating a substantial shift in the global reach of the U.S. diplomatic network, as highlighted in a leaked internal State Department document obtained by CNN. This document outlines a proposal to shut down nearly 30 American embassies and consulates around the world, signaling a radical reevaluation of the country's diplomatic priorities and presence. The move, if enacted, would represent one of the most significant reductions in the U.S. foreign service infrastructure in decades.
The recommendations come at a time when the administration is embracing a broader governmental restructuring agenda. A key player in this effort appears to be the Department of Government Efficiency, a newly influential body backed by Elon Musk, which has been advocating for leaner, more cost-effective federal operations. In alignment with these goals, the proposed closures are seen as part of a strategy to trim what some in the administration view as bureaucratic excess in international diplomacy. Yet, it remains unclear whether these changes have been formally endorsed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as no public confirmation has been provided regarding his stance.
According to the document, the plan would see the closure of 10 embassies and 17 consulates. These diplomatic posts are located across a diverse range of regions, with a notable concentration in Europe and Africa. Specific embassies earmarked for closure include those in Malta, Luxembourg, Lesotho, the Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, and South Sudan. In addition, several consulates in France, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and South Korea are on the chopping block. While the rationale behind the choice of these locations is not fully explained in the leaked material, the document does suggest a framework for decision-making that includes factors such as consular workload, operational costs, security conditions, and feedback from regional bureaus and interagency partners.
The envisioned strategy is not merely about shuttering diplomatic offices but also involves a redistribution of responsibilities. The document proposes that remaining embassies in neighboring or regional countries absorb the functions of the closed posts, thereby maintaining a semblance of operational continuity while minimizing overhead. In some cases, this would involve the creation of what are referred to as "FLEX-style" missions — minimalist outposts with a limited number of personnel and a narrow operational scope. These lightweight diplomatic nodes would presumably be tailored to fit the administrative and security realities of the host country, functioning as a more agile alternative to the traditional embassy model.
Particularly noteworthy are the adjustments proposed for U.S. missions in countries like Somalia and Iraq. These locations have been central to American counterterrorism efforts in recent years, and the proposed reductions signal a potential shift in how the administration views its role in these regions. While not outright closures, the planned downscaling of operations in such critical areas suggests a recalibration of strategic priorities, perhaps in favor of a more isolationist or cost-efficient posture.
Additionally, the document hints at structural innovations within existing diplomatic configurations. One such concept is the idea of "dual-hatted leadership," where a single senior diplomat could oversee multiple missions, such as U.S. representation to both the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and UNESCO in Paris. This model, if implemented broadly, could significantly reduce administrative redundancies while still preserving key diplomatic engagements.
The proposed overhaul also touches on high-volume missions in allies like Japan and Canada. The document suggests that these larger missions might serve as templates for regional hubs, absorbing consular functions from smaller posts and streamlining their operations through specialized support units. Such restructuring could result in major changes in how Americans and foreign nationals interact with the U.S. abroad — especially in matters like visa applications, citizen services, and emergency assistance.
Despite the far-reaching implications of these recommendations, official responses from the State Department have been vague. Tammy Bruce, a spokesperson for the department, declined to comment directly on the leaked document. She suggested that reporters seek clarification from the White House, emphasizing that budget-related decisions remain in flux and that any publicized figures or plans could be premature or inaccurate. Her remarks imply that while the document reflects internal discussions, it may not yet represent finalized policy.
Interestingly, among all the diplomatic missions listed for potential closure, ambassadorial nominees have only been announced for Malta and Luxembourg, underscoring the tentative nature of the proposed moves. This could indicate that decisions about the future of these posts are still being debated within the administration, or that the closure of some embassies is considered more politically sensitive or logistically complicated than others.
The broader context of this proposed realignment raises important questions about the future of American diplomacy. Embassies and consulates are not only bureaucratic outposts — they are vital instruments of soft power. They provide crucial services to American citizens overseas, serve as points of contact for foreign governments and local populations, and function as early warning systems for emerging political or security issues. In regions where the U.S. faces growing competition from powers like China, a diminished diplomatic footprint could be perceived as a retreat — one that might have long-term strategic consequences.
While the document reflects a desire for efficiency and cost reduction, critics are likely to argue that the closures could undermine the U.S.’s global influence at a critical time. The geopolitical landscape is increasingly volatile, and diplomatic engagement remains one of the most cost-effective tools in the foreign policy arsenal. Scaling back this capability may save money in the short term, but it risks eroding relationships and influence that have taken decades to build.
As the Trump administration continues to chart its path forward, the fate of these embassies and consulates will serve as a bellwether for the administration’s broader approach to diplomacy. Whether the document’s proposals are enacted in full, partially adopted, or ultimately shelved, they reveal a vision of American foreign policy that prioritizes efficiency and austerity — perhaps at the expense of presence and power on the world stage.