Rebuttal of Department of State
by: Kiron K. Skinner

Rebuttal to Project 2025: The Department of State by Kiron K. Skinner

Kiron K. Skinner’s vision for the Department of State in Project 2025 prioritizes an aggressive, isolationist, and transactional approach to U.S. foreign policy, promoting hard power over diplomacy and cooperation. While Skinner frames this strategy as necessary for restoring American leadership, it is in fact a dangerously narrow and outdated approach to global affairs. By neglecting diplomacy, multilateralism, and international collaboration, Skinner’s proposals risk alienating allies, undermining global stability, and weakening the United States’ position on the world stage.

Skinner’s strategy, which emphasizes a "America First" doctrine of unilateralism and self-reliance, underestimates the complexity of 21st-century global challenges that require collaboration, diplomacy, and sustained engagement with international partners. From climate change to global security, Skinner’s vision fails to recognize that strong alliances and multilateral institutions are essential for addressing the interconnected issues that no nation can tackle alone.

Undermining Diplomacy: A Short-Sighted Approach

One of the central flaws in Skinner’s vision for the Department of State is its apparent disregard for diplomacy as a critical tool of U.S. foreign policy. In Project 2025, diplomacy takes a backseat to military power and economic leverage, with Skinner advocating for a more confrontational stance toward global competitors like China and Russia. While the U.S. must certainly defend its interests and confront adversaries, diplomacy should remain the first line of defense in maintaining peace and stability. Diplomacy is a cost-effective, nonviolent means of resolving conflicts, building alliances, and preventing wars, yet Skinner’s plan minimizes its importance.

Skinner’s approach leans heavily on the idea of "America First" exceptionalism, suggesting that the U.S. should act more independently and rely less on international organizations or partnerships. This is a dangerous strategy in today’s interconnected world, where global challenges like terrorism, pandemics, nuclear proliferation, and climate change cannot be solved by one nation alone. Skinner’s emphasis on unilateralism threatens to alienate key allies and weaken the very partnerships that have been critical to U.S. security and prosperity for decades.

Multilateral institutions, such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Health Organization, are vital platforms for diplomacy and global governance. These organizations allow the U.S. to engage in collective action, share the burden of global challenges, and promote stability through international cooperation. Yet, Project 2025 downplays their importance, instead pushing for a more insular approach that would isolate the U.S. and undermine its leadership in these forums.

Alienating Allies and Weakening Global Partnerships

Skinner’s approach, rooted in hard power and economic leverage, risks alienating longstanding allies and global partners. In Project 2025, there is little emphasis on strengthening alliances or building coalitions to address global challenges. Instead, the plan focuses on securing bilateral deals and asserting U.S. dominance. This short-sighted strategy ignores the fundamental importance of alliances in maintaining global stability and advancing U.S. interests.

Alliances like NATO and partnerships with the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and other democratic nations have been the bedrock of U.S. foreign policy since World War II. These alliances not only provide security and military cooperation but also foster economic, technological, and diplomatic collaboration. By promoting a more transactional and unilateral foreign policy, Skinner’s vision could weaken these relationships, making it more difficult for the U.S. to coordinate responses to shared threats such as terrorism, cyberattacks, and climate change.

For example, NATO has been a cornerstone of European security for decades, deterring Russian aggression and ensuring peace on the continent. Skinner’s vision, which de-emphasizes the importance of multilateral alliances, could undermine NATO’s ability to function effectively, weakening European security and emboldening adversaries like Russia. At a time when global authoritarianism is on the rise, the U.S. needs to strengthen its alliances, not retreat into isolationism.

Downplaying the Role of Development and Humanitarian Aid

Another significant oversight in Skinner’s vision is the lack of emphasis on development and humanitarian aid as essential components of U.S. foreign policy. International development programs, foreign aid, and disaster relief are critical tools for promoting global stability, reducing poverty, and preventing conflict. By helping to build stable, prosperous societies, the U.S. can reduce the risk of extremism, migration crises, and global instability.

Yet, Project 2025 offers little in the way of support for these programs, focusing instead on a more transactional approach to foreign policy that prioritizes immediate economic or security gains. This neglect of development aid and humanitarian assistance will have long-term consequences, as global poverty and instability are often root causes of conflict, terrorism, and mass migration. By failing to invest in these areas, the U.S. risks exacerbating the very problems it seeks to prevent.

Furthermore, U.S. leadership in global health and humanitarian efforts has been crucial in addressing challenges like pandemics, famine, and natural disasters. American aid programs have saved millions of lives around the world, bolstering the U.S.’s global reputation and influence. Withdrawing from these efforts would cede ground to other global powers, such as China and Russia, who are eager to expand their influence through foreign aid and development programs.

Neglecting the Importance of Climate Diplomacy

One of the most glaring omissions in Skinner’s vision for the Department of State is its failure to address the existential threat of climate change. Climate diplomacy is essential for coordinating global efforts to mitigate climate change, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and prepare for its inevitable impacts. Yet, Project 2025 largely ignores the need for U.S. leadership in this area, focusing instead on short-term economic gains and energy independence through fossil fuels.

Climate change is not just an environmental issue—it is a security issue, a humanitarian issue, and an economic issue. Rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and resource scarcity are already driving conflict, displacement, and instability around the world. The U.S. must work with international partners to address these challenges through coordinated action, yet Skinner’s plan fails to recognize the role that climate diplomacy plays in securing a stable and prosperous future.

The U.S. has the opportunity to lead the global fight against climate change by rejoining the Paris Agreement, investing in clean energy technologies, and helping developing nations transition to sustainable economies. This leadership is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic one—countries that take the lead on climate innovation will reap the economic benefits of the global transition to a green economy. Skinner’s failure to prioritize climate diplomacy is a missed opportunity that could leave the U.S. lagging behind on one of the most critical issues of the 21st century.

Overreliance on Hard Power and Economic Leverage

Skinner’s vision for the Department of State relies heavily on hard power—military strength and economic leverage—as the primary tools of foreign policy. While military power and economic strength are important components of national security, they are not sufficient to address the full range of challenges the U.S. faces in the modern world.

The overreliance on hard power, as advocated in Project 2025, risks escalating conflicts and alienating global partners. For example, Skinner’s confrontational stance toward China and Russia may lead to increased tensions and a new arms race, rather than promoting peaceful competition and cooperation. A more balanced approach that includes diplomacy, economic engagement, and multilateral cooperation is necessary to manage great power competition effectively.

Additionally, Skinner’s emphasis on using economic leverage, such as tariffs and sanctions, as a primary tool of foreign policy can backfire. While sanctions can be effective in certain situations, overusing them risks alienating allies, harming global trade, and pushing adversaries into closer alliances with one another, as seen with China and Russia’s growing partnership. Economic tools should be used judiciously and in coordination with diplomatic efforts, not as a blunt instrument for coercion.

Conclusion: A Narrow and Risky Vision for U.S. Foreign Policy

Kiron K. Skinner’s Project 2025 vision for the Department of State is a regressive and risky approach to U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes isolationism, hard power, and unilateralism over diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and long-term strategic thinking. By downplaying the importance of alliances, development aid, and climate diplomacy, Skinner’s proposals threaten to weaken the U.S.’s global leadership and undermine the international institutions that have maintained global stability for decades.

In an increasingly interconnected world, the challenges of the 21st century—climate change, cyber threats, pandemics, and global terrorism—require cooperative, multilateral solutions. The U.S. cannot afford to retreat into isolationism or rely solely on military and economic power to assert its influence. A more balanced, forward-looking foreign policy is needed—one that prioritizes diplomacy, strengthens alliances, and addresses the root causes of global instability.

Ultimately, Skinner’s vision for the Department of State is out of step with the realities of modern global challenges and would leave the U.S. more isolated, less influential, and less prepared to tackle the complex issues that lie ahead. The U.S. must reject this narrow vision in favor of a foreign policy that promotes peace, cooperation, and shared prosperity.