The Trump administration is weighing a sweeping reduction of the United States’ global diplomatic footprint, with nearly 30 embassies and consulates—more than half of them in Africa—facing potential closure, according to an internal State Department document obtained by Prime Africa News.
The move is part of a broader proposal to slash the State Department’s budget by nearly 50%, with foreign aid expected to be cut by approximately 75%. The dramatic restructuring is framed by the administration as an effort to streamline operations and reduce federal spending.
Among the African nations affected by the proposed closures are Lesotho, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, the Republic of Congo, The Gambia, and South Sudan. Additionally, U.S. consulates in Durban, South Africa, and Douala, Cameroon, are on the chopping block, with their responsibilities potentially being transferred to embassies in neighboring countries.
The plan has sparked concern among foreign policy experts and African leaders who fear that such a pullback could severely undermine U.S. influence on the continent. Critics argue that with China, Russia, and other global powers expanding their economic and diplomatic engagement across Africa, the U.S. risks ceding strategic ground.
“This would send a troubling signal about America’s long-term commitment to Africa,” said a former senior State Department official familiar with the discussions. “We’re not just closing buildings—we’re weakening relationships, losing intelligence, and turning away from countries looking to the U.S. for partnership.”
In addition to Africa, proposed closures include embassies in European nations such as Malta and Luxembourg, as well as consulates in several cities across Europe and Asia.
Supporters of the plan argue that the current diplomatic network is bloated and outdated, and that modern communications and regional hubs can fulfill many of the functions once handled by physical embassies.
Still, many in Washington and abroad remain skeptical, warning that cutting diplomatic ties in volatile or strategically important regions could backfire.
As the proposal moves through internal review processes, lawmakers and international allies are closely watching how the U.S. will reshape its global presence—and what message it sends to the world.
About The Author
