President Trump’s proposed 37 percent cut in the State Department budget smacks more of a power grab than a cost savings measure. It would further concentrate (and cloister) foreign policy in the White House, where the National Security Council has ballooned to 400 staffers compared to 40 in the 1990s.

The State Department has already been squeezed during the last decade as more funds have gone to military actions in the Middle East, Afghanistan and elsewhere. As we have seen on those fronts, hard power alone can’t win the day; we must win in the “soft power” diplomatic arena as well.

Though the excuse of trimming back “foreign aid” has been invoked to justify such cuts, the truth is most of the State Department’s budget goes to support our 294 embassies, consulates and diplomatic missions across the world. Do we really want to cripple our diplomatic outposts around the world? They are our eyes and ears on the ground during an increasingly perilous time.

Just think, if you were traveling abroad and were caught in a natural disaster of some sort or had a serious mishap - an accident, a robbery, a medical emergency -- would you want to call your American embassy and ... get a recording?

Should we cut the exchange programs, such as the prestigious Fulbright program, that bring the best and brightest from other countries to learn about our country in the classroom and around kitchen tables? Those programs also bring clerics from the Middle East, who most often return home with a more positive view of the U.S. At least 200 heads of state and 1,500 high-ranking ministers have received an education in the U.S. through these exchange programs -- and have been our strongest allies. We know these programs work.

Or does the White House want to cut the State Department’s visa processing capability at a time when that process is under siege? What about the refugee issues that many embassies are contending with?

Surely, we don’t want to gut the ranks of our professional diplomats, who have to deal in the field with any dangerous problems the White House might stir up.

To his credit, new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson reportedly has pushed back against the proposed budget cut while pledging to look for cost-efficiencies. Of course, any departmental budget always can benefit from good business practices. Priorities must be set. But a 37 percent body blow? No.

Highly respected former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted in his memoir that he transferred some of his Defense budget to State because they needed it more.

As any seasoned statesman could tell President Trump, when diplomacy works, it saves the lives of soldiers.

By the Numbers

The initial 2018 budget proposal for the State Department allots $34.6 billion for both the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development in fiscal 2018.

If enacted, that would be a 37 percent reduction from the fiscal 2017 level of $50.1 billion, which includes $35.2 billion for normal diplomatic operations, and $14.9 billion to respond to crises, armed conflict, and human-caused and natural disasters.

The cuts proposed by the Trump administration would help offset some $54 billion in additional military spending.