U.S. and international officials are wrestling with the question of what the State Department funding cuts the White House proposed last week would mean for U.S. diplomacy worldwide.
In the fiscal 2018 budget blueprint released last week, the White House requested $25.6 billion in base funding for the State Department, or 28 percent less than its 2017 annualized level under the continuing budget resolution that expires on April 28.
The document did not offer a detailed breakdown for proposed program spending; this is expected in May. The department receives roughly $750 million annually for diplomatic policy and support, which includes funding for the Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance Bureau.
The White House’s budget proposal for the State Department “seeks to reduce or end direct funding for international organizations whose missions do not substantially advance U.S. foreign policy interests, are duplicative, or are not well-managed.”
This proposal includes a reduction in United Nations funding of an unspecified amount “by setting the expectation that these organizations rein in costs and that the funding burden be shared more fairly among members”; and would channel development aid to “countries of greatest strategic importance to the U.S.”
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Tuesday at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference that “the budgetary proposal is a disaster in many ways,” primarily because of its suggested cuts to these development, foreign aid, and related diplomacy programs. Kaine, who was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in her presidential campaign, said a different budget supporting these initiatives would garner “uniform Democratic support” in Congress.
Federica Mogherini, European Union high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, said Monday at the conference that she was “worried to see” the news of proposed budget cuts to State Department activities. “If the United States were to reduce significantly its investments” in development aid and similar programs, she said, “certain regions of the world would get completely destabilized.”
Christopher Ford, National Security Council senior director for weapons of mass destruction and counterproliferation, addressed concerns Tuesday that these cuts might impact the U.S. contribution to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a key U.N. organization that monitors nations’ nuclear program to ensure they are not used for military purposes. He said that while the budget details to this end are still unclear, the administration would not approach international organization funding with a “cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all mindset.”
“Rest assured that we have a very great appreciation for all the good work that the agency has been doing,” Ford said.
Trump’s budget proposal also requests $639 billion for the Defense Department, or $52 billion over the current level. It includes $574 billion for the base budget and $65 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations.
Arthur Hopkins, acting assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological defense programs, said Thursday during a House Armed Services emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee hearing that the currently enacted continuing resolution “really limits our ability to do longer-term planning” on countering weapons of mass destruction because the funding is delivered in increments. Still, “we are making it work,” he said.
Shari Durand, acting director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency – a DOD support branch working to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction – said during the same hearing that the incremental funding of contracts through the continuing resolution “more than doubles our workload” for contracting staff throughout the year.
