I would recommend anyone seeking to reduce the federal budget to begin by examining agency phone books—over time.
I spent several years at State Department in the 1980’s and compared the 1984 annual directory (https://archive.org/details/telephonedirecto1984wash/page/n1/mode/2up?view=theater)
to the current directory (https://www.state.gov/telephone-directory/). Note: The State Directory on their website is a living document and is changing as the new administration makes adjustments. My description here is based on an archived version of the State Department Directory from 14 January 2025 on the Wayback Machine websitehttp://web.archive.org/web/20250114185131/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Org-Directory.pdf.
The growth and expansion of functions is astonishing. What are all these offices? What do the people do? Where did they come from and why?
There are a few more countries today, so there are a few more embassies and desk officers. (The UN recognized 159 countries in 1984 versus 195 today– recall dissolution of Soviet Union produced several.) But that is a small part of the picture.
Metrics can be deceptive, but it’s worth noting some categories that have gone up. Back in 1984, there was a single deputy secretary of state. Now there are two. The second for management and resources (I believe this is the only agency with two deputy secretaries).
In 1984 there were four Undersecretary positions and now there are six. The number of Bureaus has increased from 18 to around 30. The increase has been in the number of functional bureaus, for example the latest one added just this year is the Bureau for Cyberspace and Digital Policy. (One of their goals is to put one or two cyber experts at each embassy—that would be around 300 people, plus the support.) Bureaus are large organizational units and are composed of offices and branches. There are lots of people and support arrangements. Some of the more recent bureaus include: Bureau of Diplomatic Technology, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the (large) Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the Bureau of Energy Resources.
One source of massive growth is the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS). It was created after the embassy bombing in Beirut in 1983. This bureau has roughly 35,000 staff now—about the size of the FBI. It has its own investigative and enforcement organization called Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) of about 2500 special agents. They investigate passport fraud, provide security details for visitors, etc.
However, the bulk of staff in the DS Bureau are contractors, local hires at embassies, and a million other things you probably never thought of. During the Iraq war they hired a very large number of security contractors (like Blackwater). BTW, just about every federal agency in Washington has its own police staff and cars, etc. I remember seeing Library of Congress police cars years ago. What did they do? Overdue library fines? However, in 2009 they were combined into the Capitol Police, possibly saving some money.
Back to the State Department, one other category that has ballooned is the number of Ambassadors at Large, basically special purpose envoys for special topics. In 1984, there were four: The lead one was General Vernon Walters who really was special and conducted some very critical missions usually on presidential direction. Today there are dozens of similar positions (all with offices and support staffs).
The present State department staff seems to be around 77,000 counting all varieties and local hires overseas. In 1984, it is hard to tell exactly but was substantially lower. Of course, staffing numbers vary according to external events. Viet Nam would created a bulge as did the war in Iraq.
There have been some key organizational changes such as the elimination of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and putting all the functions (and people) into State Department. There also have been changes in how foreign assistance is managed, especially in the 1990’s. However, the Agency for International Development (AID) has remained a separate agency. Its telephone directory has expanded too.
Growth occurs at embassies as well. You might think all the people at embassies come from the State Department. That’s not the case. Another aspect of the growth of the US government is that almost every agency has its own little internal state department and frequently deploys personnel at US embassies. NASA has an international affairs office called the Office of International and Interagency Affairs. Likewise, Commerce, Agriculture, FBI, Energy, etc. They all believe they have critical international relations that State Department cannot or will not attend to adequately. Maybe they’re right. But the net effect is it takes a lot of effort and more staff to then coordinate all these activities just in Washington. US staff stationed overseas are more expensive than domestic. Security, housing, pay differentials, all add to the cost.
The overall State Department budget is roughly the size of the overall intelligence budget (comprised of 17 intelligence agencies now). The intelligence community (a misnomer of course) has also gotten much larger with broader missions and functional divisions. If one can reduce the foreign affairs budget, it should be no challenge to reduce the intelligence budget…if you can find it.
And there Defense Department? The inefficiencies are legend, but the political entrenchments have encrusted the programs with layers of “cut insurance” that have defied revision for decades. For example, major contracts by major contractors will have cancellation liability clauses that make it more expensive to cancel a program in any given budget year (which is how congress passes budgets, when it does pass budgets) than to continue the program.
OMB, will be very busy in the next several months. Will they operate with scalpels, knives, by tradition, or maybe chainsaws? I would guess they may have to close the wounds resulting from the major surgeries of DOGE.