Donald Trump’s team wants to restructure the State Department to focus more heavily on counterterrorism — a move that could dramatically reduce the time and resources devoted to climate change, promoting democracy abroad and other programs seen as liberal priorities.

Sources familiar with the transition discussions told POLITICO that talks with State officials have convinced the president-elect’s transition team that the department is underutilized and overshadowed by the Pentagon and the White House-based National Security Council, which have typically taken the lead on the counterterrorism front. Beefing up State’s anti-terror focus also dovetails with Trump’s tough campaign rhetoric, as well as the anti-Islamist views of several of his aides.


A retooling plan would likely include enhancing State's intelligence unit, eliminating several special envoy positions and promoting the use of the contentious term “radical Islam.” At the same time, the department is looking to de-emphasize policies that are centered on nation-building abroad, in keeping with Trump's "America First" rhetoric, according to the sources.

On counterterrorism, “State has really been the least useful in terms of the president’s day-to-day tool kit for exercising power and meeting challenges,” a person familiar with the transition deliberations said. He insisted that the goal isn’t to “militarize State” but rather to shepherd its wide-ranging diplomatic efforts more toward stopping the spread of terrorist ideology.

It’s still too soon to tell exactly what this plan will look like or how well it will work. The Trump team has filled few of the available State Department positions so far, though a large raft of new hires is expected next week. And there has been a concerted effort to keep people who opposed Trump in the election from joining the department, sources say.

There may be resistance in parts of the Foreign Service to the reallocation of resources away from some of the department’s many functions. The plan also may face opposition from the Defense Department, intelligence agencies and other government units wary of ceding territory to State. But the implication is that diplomatic efforts focused on issues not directly related to terrorism, such as promoting U.S. arts and culture or standing up for workers’ rights overseas, may see less support under Trump.

“I think that there’s a perception that a lot of the stuff that State does, like promoting the arts and minority groups, the sense is that a lot of that stuff is just pandering to Democratic Party domestic constituencies in the United States,” the person familiar with the deliberations said. “It’s not about serving any identifiable American interest.”

Another source said: "It's going to be more about terrorism and less about climate change."

During his Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 11, secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, devoted an early and considerable chunk of his opening remarks to the fight against Islamist terrorism. He said that defeating the Islamic State terror network, also known as ISIS or ISIL, must be the top priority of the United States in the Middle East.

“There are competing priorities in this region which must be and will be addressed, but they must not distract from our utmost mission of defeating ISIS,” Tillerson said. “Because when everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.”

Conversations about the structure of the diplomatic corps have also led some Trump aides to believe there are far too many special envoys for issues ranging from hostage affairs to the needs of global youth. Compared to the George W. Bush administration, President Barack Obama’s team was far more prone to using special envoys (some are called special representatives, ambassadors-at-large or coordinators).

Some of the positions are likely to survive, especially if they fit into the counterterrorism rubric, or, for that matter, if Congress has created them. Others will likely land on the chopping block. One position that may be eliminated is that of the special envoy for climate change. Another possibility is getting rid of the special envoy for LGBT issues, although there are some in the Trump world who may push back on that.

“Some of the ones that are perceived as being left-wing advocacy causes I could see being eliminated,” the person familiar with the transition talks told POLITICO. “The envoys are created to make statements about administration priorities. Limiting the envoys or taking away some of their authority also makes a statement.”

While State Department officials may differ on which special envoys to keep, there are many who agree the overall number of positions is way too large.

“The penchant of the Obama team to name a special envoy for every issue that came on their screen was unhelpful at best and destructive at worst,” said Gerald Feierstein, a former principal deputy assistant secretary of state who retired last year. “It deprived bureaus that did the bulk of the foreign affairs work of needed resources and personnel, and it raised single issues over broader foreign policy goals to the detriment of orderly implementation of foreign policy.”

A serving State official said making the department more focused on counterterrorism may be a fruitful exercise because there are many who feel State is “stretched too thin.” But he also noted that much of what the department engages in is “soft power,” such as promoting inter-religious dialogue through the Countering Violent Extremism program. Furthermore, initiatives that at first may seem like Democratic priorities could in the long run contribute to the anti-terrorism effort. Reducing the impact of climate change could, for instance, prevent economic and social upheaval that can lead to radicalization.

“State often gets criticized for the fact that we never have black-or-white answers,” he quipped. “We’re always saying, ‘Well, it’s complicated.’”

One State Department section likely to get more resources is the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which is generally well-regarded for its analytical work but does not get the same attention as the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

“We want to make them more relevant,” the person familiar with the transition deliberations said. “There’s a desire to promote them, making them more a part of the broader counterterrorism strategy and the intelligence gathering.”

Another division of the State Department likely to see significant change is the refugee resettlement program. Over the past year and a half, the section has increased the number of Syrian refugees being resettled to the United States. But Trump wants to bar Syrians from U.S. shores, and he can quickly adjust the program to prevent their entry.

Trump also wants to increase the vetting of visitors to the U.S. who hail from countries affected by terrorism, many of which are majority Muslim. So State officials who deal with consular and visa affairs may find themselves under greater pressure to reject applicants for U.S. entry.

During the 2016 campaign, Trump was inconsistent on many issues, but not his desire to fight Islamist terrorists. He promised to “bomb the sh--” out of the Islamic State terrorist group. More recently, he and his aides have promoted the idea that it’s worth setting aside U.S. differences with Russia — which is suspected of interfering with the election to help Trump — in return for Moscow’s cooperation on fighting terrorist groups.

How Trump directs the State Department’s diplomats to deal with Russia, especially considering the rising animus between Washington and Moscow over the past few years, is one of the biggest questions of all for Foggy Bottom staff.

Trump also has denounced the Obama administration for refusing to use the “Islam” label when describing much of the terrorism directed at the United States. Some of Trump’s aides, including incoming national security adviser Michael Flynn and incoming White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, view Islamist extremism as an existential threat to the West. Muslim-American activists are so alarmed by the rhetoric they fear the Trump White House will go on witch hunts against Muslims in general, not just extremist ones.

The Obama administration, and even the Bush administration, avoided directly linking the term “Islam” with “terrorism” for fear of playing into extremists’ hands and alienating Muslim-majority countries that the U.S. relies upon for intelligence and military assistance in the fight against jihadists. But the Trump team appears poised to use the term frequently, including in the diplomatic arena.

“We need to be honest about radical Islam,” Tillerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his hearing. “It is with good reason that our fellow citizens have a growing concern about radical Islam and murderous acts committed in its name against Americans and our friends.”

During his opening remarks, Tillerson listed the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat on par with Al Qaeda, a startling mention that suggests some influence on the Trump team by thinkers long considered to be on the conservative fringe.

The Muslim Brotherhood denounced violence decades ago, has long sought to pursue its Islamist ideology through political participation and is not listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. government. But over the years, the Egyptian-based Brotherhood has spawned or inspired other organizations that have been more militant. More recently, especially since the Arab Spring movements in 2011, the secretive organization has been battered by crackdowns in Egypt and other Arab countries, whose rulers view it as a threat to their undemocratic regimes.

Several people in Trump’s orbit have pushed the notion that the Brotherhood is a pernicious threat to the United States and that it has gained a foothold in the U.S. government, including the State Department. Flynn, the incoming national security adviser, published a column on Election Day implying that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin, who used to work at the State Department, has sympathies for the Brotherhood.

Some Republican lawmakers also have pushed legislation aimed at designating the Brotherhood a terrorist organization. Tillerson’s testimony suggests he is open to such legislative efforts, even though terrorist designations are usually carefully considered decisions involving the State Department’s lawyers. Still, when pressed by some senators, the would-be secretary of state insisted it was important to distinguish between Muslim allies and Muslim extremists.

“If confirmed, I will ensure the State Department does its part in supporting Muslims around the world who reject radical Islam in all its forms,” Tillerson said.

