THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2025 79 AFSA NEWS survey versus 11 percent in population), 57 were FS-2 (29 percent of survey versus 22 percent in population), 48 were FS-3 (25 percent of survey versus 27 percent in population), and 10 were FS-4 (5 percent of survey versus 22 percent in population). The net result is that SFS, FS-1, and FS-2 are overrepresented; this is consistent with a plan that did not target most specialists and also largely left out untenured officers. Assignment Patterns. A common question we have heard at AFSA is whether employees on DETOs (domestic employees teleworking overseas), LWOP (leave without pay), or overcomplement were more likely to be RIFed. Among the 194 respondents, 19 were on DETOs, three were on LWOP, and one was reported to be on over-complement. While the number of DETOs seems high compared to the overall numbers at the department, those DETOs who identified an office were associated with bureaus/ offices experiencing widespread cuts, making it unlikely that individuals on DETOs were specifically targeted. Single RIF Groups. Only a few days before the original planned RIF date in late June, the department, without consultation with AFSA, unilaterally changed the RIF procedures that had been in place following extended consultations in the mid-1990s. The pre-2025 procedures had developed a complicated point system for RIFs based on factors such as length of service, selection panel results, languages, and veteran status. These earlier procedures had specifically stated that RIFs “would not be limited to a specific post, region, or bureau.” In the past, RIF groups were established based on skill codes, cones, and grades on a worldwide basis. The changes instituted in June threw out this system and made the office of assignment the key factor in determining competition groups. More than half of respondents who received RIF letters (118 or 61 percent) were the only members of their RIF competition groups, thus making a point system meaningless. If we remove the survey respondents who did not answer the question about the size of their RIF group, the percentage climbs to 69 percent. Thus, at least two-thirds were the only people in their RIF competition groups. Most of the remaining respondents were in groups of two to four, and in most of these cases, all members of the group were RIFed. Overall, then, the data does not back up department assertions, including Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Michael Rigas’ testimony before Congress on July 15 and 16, that RIF decisions were based on “merit system principles.” Instead, RIF groups were clearly so narrowly drawn to make RIFs in most cases inevitable. Offices Not Notified to Congress. While the administration’s intentions to carry out RIFs in some offices—including in the Bureaus of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO); Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM); Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL); and Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs (E Bureau)—were telegraphed well in advance, many offices were never flagged publicly or notified to Congress in any meaningful way. AFSA has identified several offices (CA/EX, EB/IFD/OMA, EB/TPN/MTA, GTM/ER, GTM/TAC/TEC, DS/CTW/TIE, and OBO/OPS/AM) that were listed in the Congressional Notification (CN) as due for “No Significant Change” but that nevertheless experienced substantial FS layoffs. Unofficial data AFSA has seen confirms there were substantial Civil Service layoffs in these same offices. (AFSA has also heard from numerous offices reporting that they were informally told that their jobs would be preserved despite planned mergers with other offices, but this sadly proved not to be the case. The nature of these reports, however, is such that they cannot be confirmed with published sources.) Conclusion. AFSA’s data provide only a partial picture of the July 11 RIFs. As the State Department is unwilling to share its data, the picture will necessarily be incomplete. There have been anecdotes of specific functions being cut precipitously, including the Office of Casualty Assistance and offices that process transfer orders, the Management Support Unit, and Diplomats in Residence. The real effect on the operations of the department, as well as the influence on U.S. foreign policy, will play out in the coming months and years. —Lisa Heller, AFSA Director of Professional Policy Issues n 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Grade Distribution: RIF vs Overall FS Population SFS 01 02 03 04 RIF Survey FS Overall
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=