The first Trump administration made unprecedented strides in promoting religious freedom. Summits were convened, alliances launched, the religious freedom office elevated, and special aid programs created. Many hoped these efforts would continue. The naming of Marco Rubio—a long-time Senate advocate—as secretary of state reinforced that hope.
The administration’s first 100 days have been a whirlwind, in part dominated by debates over the necessity and scope of foreign aid. Until recently, issues of international religious freedom rarely arose. That changed in late April when the president announced a candidate for ambassador at large for international religious freedom (IRF), followed by Secretary Rubio’s reorganization of the State Department. With renewed discussions about how to advance American values and interest, both will profoundly impact how America promotes religious freedom abroad.
Since 1998, the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), has anchored U.S. diplomacy to religious freedom—establishing the ambassador at large position, an IRF office, mandated reporting, and dedicated appropriations. In the 25 years since, American leadership has advanced religious freedom—freeing prisoners, reforming oppressive laws, and defending global norms, all leading to a safer and freer world.
Despite these efforts, religious persecution persists, affecting every faith somewhere, demonstrating the need for continued innovation and a refresh of structures built a generation ago. To secure lasting change, we must update systems, retain what worked, and develop practical, sustainable programs.
Secretary Rubio’s proposed State Department reorganization is focused on modernizing and streamlining American diplomacy. The plan would consolidate many offices into a new, undersecretary-level directorate for foreign assistance and human rights. The human rights bureau will fall under this directorate, with the IRF office within that bureau—a demotion from the office’s placement directly under an undersecretary by the first Trump administration. The plan would also shift much of the human rights work to regional bureaus and embassies overseas.
Secretary Rubio explained in an interview that, “we’re still going to be involved in those things, caring about human rights, but it’s going to be run at the embassy and regional level, not out of some office in Washington, D.C. that has that title.” He stressed his desire to bring regional and functional efforts together to streamline command structures for faster and efficient action, “putting those people [focused on human rights] in the regions and in the embassies so that all of our foreign policy is being balanced within those bureaus.”
Anyone who has worked at the State Department would agree on the need to streamline the bureaucracy and reform the dysfunctional clearance system. In my book, I write about the frustrations encountered and offer recommendations for reform. However, I fear Secretary Rubio’s plan will hamper U.S. promotion of religious freedom and related human rights to the detriment of American interests. Others agree. Elliott Abrams made many strong points about the plan’s shortcomings, and Todd Stein explained how organization charts determine policy by regulating who gets to share information with leadership.
Fine tuning Secretary Rubio’s plan can ensure he gets the best information to advance American interests and values. I recommend three actions: 1) returning the IRF office to the bureau level, distinct from, and on par with, the human rights bureau; 2) keep personnel focused on human rights in the human rights offices; and 3) ensure the free flow of information on religious freedom and human rights to the Secretary.
Regarding the IRF office’s placement, Secretary Rubio’s reorganization will undo one of the first Trump administration’s accomplishments: elevating the IRF office out of the human rights bureau and giving it equal footing with other bureaus. While of seemingly little relevance, that simple change improved access to high-level officials that enabled bold initiatives. While some feared a de-emphasis of religious freedom during the Biden administration, the IRF office’s stronger position ensured religious freedom remained part of the conversation.
We know the system Secretary Rubio proposes will hamper religious freedom advocacy, as it was the status quo until just a few years ago. The first IRF office director, Tom Farr, has written about the difficulty he experienced advocating for religious freedom from the bottom of the power chain. I also experienced how bureaucratic hurdles buried urgent issues when I served in the IRF office during the George W. Bush administration. The elevation fulfilled Congress’ intent, as the IRF Act states the Ambassador at Large “shall” direct the work of the IRF Office and “shall” be the principal adviser to the President and the Secretary of State on matters of religious freedom abroad. Lowering the office’s position risks the ambassador at large’s influence and effectiveness before he even arrives, and confuses reporting lines.
Secondly, moving human rights and religious freedom functions to the regional bureaus or embassies places those topics under different lines of authority with different priorities. In my experience, the human rights agenda, regardless of administration, has always struggled to have positive influence. Under the reorganization, if a regional assistant secretary or an ambassador nixes reports or recommendations from his or her team, there’s no appeal—and often, no visibility. It risks depriving the Secretary and White House of unfiltered insights. Human rights and religious freedom advocacy often create diplomatic difficulties, which desk officers and embassy teams often wish to avoid. I participated in efforts that brought about notable progress in countries like Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia, progress only possible through leadership from our office. U.S. embassies were often the roadblock on rights issues, not the solution.
Lastly, a strong and independent human rights bureau compliments the work of the IRF office. The defense of religious freedom goes hand in hand with the defense of other related human rights, including freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and other rights. In my experience, both are more effective if independent from each other. In the same way, merging human rights with an assistance directorate will greatly diminish the independent policy voice that the human rights bureau has provided since the Reagan era. Separate but equal can work well.
Without experts who can provide independent policy advice on religious freedom and the range of pressing human rights concerns that will come across his desk, Secretary Rubio will not have all the facts or strategic options. To get the best information about how American influence can promote stable, secure, and rights-respecting nations, Secretary Rubio needs a strong DC-based human rights team. He should establish a regular, direct meeting with rights envoys—including the ambassador at large for international religious freedom—to hear their views and maintain access to independent reporting. Many such envoys are legally mandated to report directly to the secretary; this mechanism should be preserved and strengthened.
The first Trump administration and Senator Rubio were champions for international religious freedom. Reforming the State Department is needed, but doing so in a way that enables stronger values diplomacy. Otherwise, religious freedom and human rights advocacy risks falling by the wayside. Empowering—not sidelining—religious freedom and human rights offices will better advance both American ideals and interests.
Knox Thames served in a special envoy position during the Obama and Trump administrations focused on religious minorities in the Middle East and South/Central Asia. His book, Ending Persecution: Charting the Path to Global Religious Freedom, was released in September 2025 by University of Notre Dame Press.
