A hat tip to a former State Dept. official with a long memory (like an elephant) who alerted me to this information. Grok eventually filled in the blanks but only when prompted with original details.
Are the 2025 Layoffs the First of Their Kind?
The 2025 State Department layoffs are not the first mass layoffs in the department’s modern history.
In 1987, 1,270 State Department positions were eliminated. It was explicitly described at the time as the “largest round of job cuts in the department’s modern history.”
The 2025 layoffs, with 1,353 firings, are larger in absolute numbers, but smaller in terms of workforce percentage.
Since the 1987 layoffs, the State Department roster had expanded by an additional 12,000+ employees.
1,270 firings in 1987: 8% of the State Department direct-hire staff of 15,800.
1,353 firings in 2025: 5% of the State Department's total direct-hire staff of 27,230 (14,399 Foreign Service employees and 12,831 Civil Service).
Read on for details.
Similarities Between 1987 and 2025 Layoffs
Scale and Impact:
1987: 1,270 jobs (~8% of 15,800 positions), with significant morale damage and concerns about impaired department performance (e.g., economic reporting).
2025: 1,353 firings (~5% of the 27,230 positions including ~15% of U.S.-based staff), with similar concerns about undermining diplomacy and soft power.
Both were among the largest cuts in their respective periods.
Budget-Driven:
1987: Triggered by an $84 million shortfall in fiscal 1988 appropriations.
2025: Part of a broader administration push to reduce federal spending and bureaucracy, though specific budget figures for the State Department are not detailed.
Reorganization Focus:
1987: Involved office consolidations (e.g., merging bureaus) and closures of embassies and consulates.
2025: Eliminated or consolidated hundreds of offices, particularly in areas like global funding and refugee programs.
Criticism of Process:
1987: Criticized for secrecy and lack of consultation with bureaus, prioritizing personnel cuts over infrastructure savings.
2025: Criticized for chaotic execution (e.g., erroneous layoff notices) and lack of transparency, with concerns about long-term damage to diplomacy.
Targeting Specific Functions:
1987: Cut economic affairs specialists, public diplomacy offices, and regional bureau functions.
2025: Targeted global human rights, energy policy, and refugee programs, reflecting administration priorities.
Differences Between 1987 and 2025 Layoffs
Legal and Political Context:
1987: Required congressional approval for early retirements and RIFs due to the Foreign Service Act of 1980, indicating a more constrained process.
2025: Enabled by a Supreme Court ruling lifting an injunction, allowing rapid implementation without congressional approval.
Execution Speed:
1987: Planned over months, with a final plan due by October 1987, and involved legislative hurdles.
2025: Executed rapidly after the July 8, 2025, Supreme Court ruling, with firings on July 11, 2025, via email notices.
Policy Priorities:
1987: Driven by budget cuts under the Reagan administration’s deficit reduction goals (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act), with a focus on eliminating duplicative functions.
2025: Part of a Trump administration initiative to reduce federal “bloat,” targeting programs misaligned with its foreign policy priorities (e.g., global human rights, refugee programs).
Global Footprint:
1987: Closed two embassies and 13 consulates, directly reducing overseas presence.
2025: No specific mention of embassy or consulate closures, with cuts focused on U.S.-based staff and program offices.
Similarities
Both faced criticism for damaging morale and diplomatic capabilities.
Both targeted specific functions and involved reorganizations to eliminate perceived redundancies. However, the 2025 layoffs are smaller in terms of percentage, and driven by a different political context. The 1987 cuts also had a notable overseas component (embassy/consulate closures), while 2025 focused on domestic staff.
Most of these agencies could stand a 50 - 75% RIF, without loss of output, by simply working smarter and harder. The challenge is in getting the government to work "smarter," when their philosophy is to work slowly and inefficiently (including "make-work") in order to justify fat, sluggish staffs. I've seen it from the inside.
And then they added 12,000 positions. I wonder how many more countries got created while we added 12,000 jobs. This tells me we didn’t fire enough people in 2025. What on earth ever justified adding 12,000 positions. Focus on that!