Trump administration orders ‘abrupt’ recall of dozens of career diplomats: Source
The Department of State building in Washington, July 11, 2025. Hu Yousong/Xinhua via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is recalling dozens of career diplomats from overseas posts in the next month, according to a source familiar with the matter, the latest shakeup at the U.S. State Department.
More than two dozen senior diplomats have received notice that they must leave their roles in the next month, according to the source.
According to the American Foreign Service Association, the labor union that represents the U.S. foreign service and career diplomats, those affected by the recall report being notified by a phone call that they were being removed from their posts “abruptly,” with no explanation provided.
They were directed to vacate their posts by Jan. 15 or 16.
“This method is highly irregular,” a spokesperson for AFSA told ABC News.
“This is not normal practice. Career diplomats and ambassadors are not typically recalled in this manner. The lack of transparency and process breaks sharply with longstanding norms,” the spokesperson said.
Most of the impacted ambassadors are serving at U.S. diplomatic posts in Africa, but the removals also affect posts in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere.
A senior State Department official described the recall of the ambassadors as “a standard process in any administration.”
“An ambassador is a personal representative of the President, and it is the President’s right to ensure that he has individuals in these countries who advance the America First agenda,” they said.
The State Department declined to comment on specific numbers or ambassadors affected.
AFSA confirmed there is no official, verified list of recalled ambassadors.
There are various lists circulating that appear to be crowdsourced from people inside and outside the department, according AFSA.
POLITICO first reported on the removal of the diplomats.
The recall is the latest move by the Trump administration to reshape the State Department to align it more with its “America First” priorities. The recall comes after more than 1,300 officials and more than 240 foreign service officers were laid off earlier this year as part of what the administration said was a major reorganization aimed at increasing efficiency and reducing government size.
It is typically normal for new presidents to replace political appointments service in ambassador roles; however, career diplomats are typically allowed to continue serving in their roles.
The AFSA slammed the recall, saying it sends a “chilling signal” to career foreign service officers that their oaths to the Constitution take a backseat to political loyalty.
“Removing senior diplomats without cause undermines U.S. credibility abroad and sends a chilling signal to the professional Foreign Service: experience and an oath to the Constitution take a backseat to political loyalty. This is not how America leads,” the statement said.
AFSA says the recall represents “a steady erosion of norms, transparency, and professional independence in the Foreign Service.”
“Abrupt, unexplained recalls reflect the same pattern of institutional sabotage and politicization our survey data shows is already harming morale, effectiveness, and U.S. credibility abroad,” the spokesperson said.
AFSA is working with partners to confirm names one-by-one through direct contacts.
ABC News’ Luis Martinez and Josh Margolin contributed to this report.
This screen grab taken from a video posted on the X account of U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem shows a U.S. Coast Guard aircraft flying over a crude oil tanker, last docked in Venezuela, before apprehending it on Dec. 20, 2025. Handout/US Secretary of Homeland Security via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump last week announced a “complete blockade of all sanctioned oil tankers going into and out of Venezuela,” ratcheting up the pressure on Nicolás Maduro’s regime as 15,000 U.S. troops and 11 warships stand ready in nearby waters — and leaving questions over the scope of the apparent escalation.
A naval blockade is considered an act of war under international law. But Trump’s reference to “sanctioned” tankers indicated U.S. operations would continue as a law enforcement crackdown by the U.S. Coast Guard, which seized an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast last week and another over the weekend.
A Coast Guard interdiction is not a military operation; it is a court-authorized enforcement of U.S. sanctions.
According to retired Marine Corps Col. Steve Ganyard, a former State Department official and an ABC News contributor, the president’s orders, announced on his social media platform, amount to a legal quarantine — and not a blockade — because the post references only legally sanctioned tankers.
But Trump also referred to the Venezuelan regime as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), which could implicate any oil tanker that enters Venezuelan waters.
It wasn’t clear how the administration could designate the government as terrorists — or whether Trump was making reference to Cartel de los Soles, which the administration designated as a terror organization and has said is headed by Maduro.
What impact could a quarantine or blockade have?
Trump’s post last week “leaves more questions than answers,” said Clayton Seigle, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “What exactly are we going to do? How are we going to do it?”
“None of that is really detailed,” he said.
Whether the escalated pressure will target sanctioned vessels — or all vessels — remains an open question, but both approaches would impact Maduro, Seigle said.
“If you cut off all oil exports, and the associated revenues — and that’s a big if –then I think in a matter of weeks, the regime in Caracas would face extreme pressure,” he said.
If the U.S. continues to target only sanctioned tankers, “then I think that it could be a more prolonged runway for the regime to try to work something out, find a compromise, or even plan a deliberate exit.”
The U.S. says it has killed more than 100 people in the 25 strikes it says it has carried out on alleged drug smuggling boats since September.
Experts have pointed to President John F. Kennedy’s quarantine of Cuba in 1962 as an analogue to Trump’s approach — with unknown possibilities inviting risk.
“What if a ship doesn’t stop? This was the debate in the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Seigle said. “It’s all fun and games if they pull over and let [themselves] get boarded.”
“What if they don’t? Are you opening fire? Are you sinking ships?”
The announced blockade, though, “looks like it’s a relatively low-risk military operation” designed “to prevent” such a “quagmire,” Seigle said.
“Because if it goes smoothly and they’re able to cut off a lot of Maduro’s oil revenue, then they have a reasonable chance of getting the political outcome that they want, which is Maduro fleeing.”
Yet Trump on Wednesday wouldn’t offer a comment when asked if he sought regime change in Venezuela. Instead, he repeated a claim he said was a premise for blocking tankers.
“You remember, they took all of our energy rights,” he said of Venezuela. “They took all of our oil from not that long ago, and we want it back. But they took it. They illegally took it.”
Trump did not specify which period of nationalizations undertaken by the Venezuelan governments aggrieved the U.S. in his view.
An international arbitration court in 2013 ordered Caracas to pay $8.7 billion to U.S. firm ConocoPhillips, penalizing Venezuela for expropriation of crude assets in 2007 which it found to be unlawful.
Operating in the shadows The U.S. has sanctioned hundreds of oil tankers around the world which it says are part of an illicit network often called the “shadow fleet.”
27 of those designated tankers are operating in Venezuelan waters, according to Seigle.
Venezuela, Russia, and Iran “share that sanctioned fleet,” he added, and Venezuela’s slice is the smallest of the three.
A full quarter of China’s oil imports are produced by those sanctioned countries, Seigle said, leaving the country with “an outsized concern.”
“This is going to raise eyebrows and maybe raise concerns in Beijing among strategic planners that are responsible for making sure that they have enough oil,” he said.
Sanctioned tankers represent less than a fifth of the oil exported from Venezuela, according to Seigle.
“But I think it can have outsized effects in a number of important areas, including whether and for how long Maduro can hold out in a leadership position in Caracas, and also with regard to Venezuela’s biggest oil customer, which is China.”
Why call Maduro’s regime terrorists?
|As a part of Trump’s lengthy post on social media, the president also said the “Venezuelan regime” was an FTO, which the State Department designated it as in November.
Trump and State officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have repeatedly said Maduro is a narco-terrorist and the head of a narco-terrorist organization, adding that Maduro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
Trump is likely referring to the designation of the Cartel de los Soles when he points to the “Venezuelan Regime” in his post.
The State Department alleges in its designation that Maduro and other high-ranking officials head the Cartel de los Soles and have “corrupted Venezuela’s military, intelligence, legislature, and judiciary.”
Maduro’s government categorically denies the existence of the cartel.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in November that the designation of Maduro as a terrorist gives the U.S. more military options in its anti-trafficking operation and public pressure campaign on the Venezuelan president.
The FTO designation “brings a whole bunch of new options to the United States,” Hegseth said. “It gives more tools to our department to give options to the president.”
Legal experts have told ABC that the designation does not in itself constitute an authorization of force. But administration officials have consistently pointed to these designations publicly when disclosing strikes on alleged drug traffickers.
Notably, while the Maduro regime has been targeted as a foreign terrorist organization, the country of Venezuela has not yet been placed on the official “State Sponsor of Terrorism” list.
Only Iran, North Korea, Syria and Cuba are currently listed as state sponsors of terrorism.
Bill Clinton speaks onstage during the Clinton Global Initiative 2025 Annual Meeting at New York Hilton Midtown on September 25, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by JP Yim/Getty Images for New York Hilton Midtown)
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Bill Clinton, in his opening statement at his historic closed-door deposition before the Republican-led House Oversight Committee on Friday, denied any knowledge of the crimes committed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, going on to say making his wife Hillary Clinton testify “was simply not right.”
In his statement as released, he stated that he will often say, “I do not recall” throughout his questioning because the events were “all a long time ago.”
“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said, according to the statement.
The former president is being grilled by the committee as part of its investigation into Epstein in Chappaqua, New York — marking a historic moment for a former president. Friday’s deposition is the first time a former president has been compelled to testify before a congressional panel.
He is facing questions under oath about his relationship with Epstein and photos that show the former president with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and other crimes.
The former president’s testimony comes a day after the committee questioned former Secretary of State and first lady Hillary Clinton over the couple’s dealings with the convicted sex offender.
On Friday, Bill Clinton said he had to “get personal” and blasted the committee for forcing his wife to answer their questions.
“You made Hillary come in. She had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Nothing. She has no memory of even meeting him. She neither traveled with him nor visited any of his properties,” he said in his statements as released. “Whether you subpoenaed 10 people or 10,000, including her was simply not right.”
In her deposition Thursday, Hillary Clinton said she did not know Epstein, could not recall ever encountering him and never visited him on his island or at his home or office.
Hillary Clinton, on Thursday, also gave a preview of how her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will handle his own deposition.
“I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who had contact with him before his criminal pleas in ’08 were like most people — they did not know what he was doing. And I think that that is exactly what my husband will testify to tomorrow,” she said.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
Bill Clinton said in his opening statement that he had “no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing.”
“No matter how many photos you show me, I have two things that at the end of the day matter more than your interpretation of those 20-year-old photos. I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn’t see. I know what I did, and more importantly, what I didn’t do,” he said in his statement as released.
Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer reiterated Friday morning that the Clintons have been called to testify to try to answer questions about Epstein.
“No one’s accusing anyone of any wrongdoing, but I think the American people have a lot of questions, and our House Oversight Committee is committed to getting answers,” Comer said Friday morning.
Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.
Bill Clinton told New York Magazine through a spokesperson at the time that “Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of 21st century science.”
Maxwell said in a recorded interview last year with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, that it was she, not Epstein, who had a friendship with Bill Clinton, and that she was the one who suggested and organized his trips on Epstein’s aircraft.
The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead.
David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.
Kendall contended the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
Comer had long threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear before the committee, so when they didn’t, a contempt resolution was drafted and put to a vote.
The Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote.
At the last minute, just before the resolution was to be voted on in the House, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.
Democrats on the committee said they hope this week’s testimony from the Clintons spark Republican committee members to investigate more of Epstein’s ties to President Donald Trump.
Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said that he cut off contact with his former friend more than 20 years ago.
“We have said from day one that we want to talk to former President Bill Clinton, and the other person we want to talk to is current President Donald Trump,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, said Friday. “And so we should be very clear that now that we’re going to hear from former President Clinton, I hope that Chairman Comer and the Republicans will join us in demanding that the person who actually appears more times in the files than the former president who we want to speak with is President Donald Trump.”
While the Clintons have agreed to speak with the committee behind closed doors, they have still pushed for public hearings as part of the committee’s investigation.
“I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court by a Republican Party running scared,” Bill Clinton wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If they want answers, let’s stop the games & do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about.”
President Donald Trump speaks as Vice President JD Vance listens in the Oval Office of the White House, March 16, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is expected to take up the SAVE America Act this week after President Donald Trump earlier this month thrust the bill into focus with a threat to withhold his signature on all other legislation until the GOP voting reform bill hits his desk.
Debate on the bill could kick off in the Senate as soon as Tuesday, but on Monday the president seemed doubtful that it would get to his desk.
“I think it’s imperative that it gets done. I’m not sure it is,” Trump said when asked about the bill’s outlook.
“I hope [Senate Majority Leader] John Thune can get it across the line. He’s trying. I mean, he told me this morning. I spoke to him, he’s trying,” Trump said. “I think it’ll be a very, very bad thing for our country if they don’t. We’re just asking for basic things,” Trump said.
Things could get quite heated on the floor, but ultimately the legislation, despite having a passionate base of GOP supporters, will almost certainly fail.
Here’s a look at what to know about this bill as it takes center stage this week:
What is the SAVE America Act?
The SAVE America Act is a Republican-led election reform bill that would require photo ID at polling places and mandate that states obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote in a federal election.
Trump has said that passing the SAVE America Act is a top priority. The president has also tacked additional provisions onto the list of things he would like to see in the law: restricting mail-in ballots, banning transgender women from playing in women’s sports and gender-affirming surgeries for minors.
Will the bill the Senate is considering include Trump’s additional demands?
The Senate is expected to consider amendments to the SAVE America Act aimed at adding Trump’s demands. But those amendments would need 60 votes to pass, and are not expected to get enough support to ultimately be tacked onto the bill.
What do Democrats think of the bill?
Senate Democrats have been clear they intend to oppose this legislation, which they say would make it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote.
During a press call on Sunday, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called the bill “one of the most despicable pieces of legislation I’ve come across in the many years I’ve been a legislator.”
Democrats have been quick to underscore that the bill does more than require voters to show ID at the polling place. They say it amounts to an effort to nationalize elections and could lead to many people being turned away at their polling place.
What can be expected on the Senate floor this week?
The Senate is expected to hold a potentially lengthy debate on the floor this week as they consider the bill.
It will be a contentious couple of days during which the floor will be open for nearly unlimited debate on the bill. This debate could stretch into this weekend, but the result is already baked. When lawmakers run out of steam to keep debating, there will be a vote to move forward with the bill that requires 60 votes to advance. Democrats will almost certainly block it, and the bill will fail.
Will the SAVE America Act pass?
It is highly unlikely that the SAVE America Act will pass the Senate.
Though there’s going to be a lot of debate on the bill, the Senate rules that require 60 votes to pass most legislative matters will remain intact. That means that even if every Senate Republican were to cast a vote in favor of this legislation, at least seven Democrats would need to support it for it to pass.
Democrats have vowed to block the bill. Without their support, it will fail.
Could senators change the rules?
Yes, they could. But they won’t.
The Senate filibuster rule requires 60 votes to pass most legislative matters into law. Senators have the ability to change their rules with a simple majority of votes, and they’ve faced considerable pressure from Trump and others to do so.
But Thune has been consistent throughout his time as party leader about the lack of support within the Republican conference to change the Senate’s rules. Thune is a supporter of the Senate filibuster, and he has been clear there are not the votes to change the filibuster rule.
Senators are not expected to make modifications to the threshold of votes necessary to pass this bill. Without those changes, its hard to see how this would pass.
If the Senate fails to pass it, what happens?
Then it’s back to the drawing board.
This week’s actions amount to a good-faith effort by Senate Republicans to demonstrate that they are trying to make good on Trump’s priority. But this is largely a messaging vote unlikely to get the support it needs.
The House could take further action to try to revive the bill. But Democratic opposition in the Senate makes it unlikely that any renewed efforts will see a different outcome.
What’s less clear is whether this will be enough to back Trump off of his threat to withhold his signature on all other bills.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the elements of the House-passed bill.
