The Trump administration is disputing some of the specific figures in a leaked memo laying out plans for a massive downsizing of the State Department’s diplomatic footprint, including the possible closing of embassies. But the idea has sparked a major backlash from critics who say it would be a self-inflicted wound by the U.S.

The Washington Times’ Vaughn Cockayne has a deep dive on the leaked memo. All told, 10 embassies and 17 consulates would be shuttered, mostly in Africa and Europe, according to the plan. Closed embassies would be folded into similar facilities in neighboring countries. The cuts to embassies and consulates would significantly contribute to achieving an overall 48% spending cut.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce stressed that the memo was not released through official channels and that “there is no final plan, final budget, final dynamic.”

Still, former high-level U.S. diplomats said the plan, if enacted, would be deeply damaging to America.

“Outrageously bad decision. A giant gift to the Communist Party of China,” former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul wrote on X. “I hope Congress finally begins to play its role as outlined in the Constitution and push back on this.”

The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a dire warning this week: The U.S. military currently is unable to deter China and other adversaries.

The comments from Gen. Caine, who was sworn into his post as the nation’s top military officer last week, came in written responses to the Senate Armed Services Committee. National Security Correspondent Bill Gertz is tracking this story, which highlights a remarkably blunt and somewhat pessimistic take on America’s military stature right now.

“The U.S. does not have the throughput, responsiveness or agility needed to deter our adversaries,” Gen. Caine wrote.

The timing of his words is noteworthy. The U.S. and China are locked in a deepening trade war, which is ratcheting up tensions between the two global powers. And last week, Adm. Sam Paparo, the commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, told a Senate hearing that China is engaged in “unprecedented aggression” against Taiwan. A conflict over Taiwan could draw in U.S. forces.

Adm. Paparo said U.S. forces can deter China and prevail in a conflict but warned that “the margin is eroding.”

A long-running debate over the headquarters of U.S. Space Command was reignited this week with the public release of a Pentagon Inspector General’s report. The study found that the Pentagon could have saved $426 million by reestablishing Space Command headquarters at Redstone Arsenal in Alabama, rather than in Colorado.

Still, Space Command officials told the watchdog that they feared the command may lose qualified personnel if it announced the change, specifically a “loss of civilian personnel” with a move to Alabama.

The location of Space Command headquarters has been the subject of an intense dispute in Congress between delegations from the two states.

What’s the right way for the Army to think about using robots and autonomous systems for important tasks? Retired Lt. Gen. Neil Thurgood, the former director of the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, explains on the most recent episode of the Threat Status weekly podcast.

“It’s not how I replace humans with machines. It’s how do I use the combination of humans and machines for a better outcome,” said Mr. Thurgood, now a senior vice president at the company Anduril. “It’s not just replacing tasks. It’s, ‘How do I do the task better with the adaptation of machines and machine-human interface, with a soldier?’”

That human-machine dynamic will play an increasingly central role in Army strategy. By 2027, the service plans to field its first human-machine integrated formations, with the goal of using robots and drones, not humans, to make first contact with the enemy on the battlefield. 

In 2003, then-Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi signed off on a deal that fully dismantled his country’s nuclear program. Is such a sweeping, permanent solution possible with Iran?

Robert Joseph, former U.S. special envoy for nuclear nonproliferation, writes in a new op-ed that in its nuclear negotiations with Iran, the Trump administration must aim high and try to secure a deal that eliminates Tehran’s ability to enrich uranium. In other words, not just limits on uranium enrichment or other technical barriers to a nuclear bomb, but the full, verifiable end of Iran’s program.

“Any outcome that permits Iran to enrich uranium at any level will fail the one standard that Mr. Trump has established: Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Joseph writes.

“Limiting enrichment to even low levels will allow Iran to break out of the agreement at any time, no matter what the agreement says. Perhaps Iran’s leaders will wait until Mr. Trump leaves office; perhaps changes in circumstances will encourage them to move sooner,” he writes. “Although the chances for an agreement prohibiting all enrichment are narrow, they cannot be ruled out. The circumstances are more favorable today than at any time in the past. Iran is weaker and more desperate than ever, externally and internally.”

• April 16 — Navigating the U.S.-PRC Tech Competition in the Global South, Atlantic Council 

• April 17 — Persistent Access, Persistent Threat: Ensuring Military Mobility Against Malicious Cyber Actors, Foundation for Defense of Democracies

• April 22 — Ally to Adversary? The United States and Europe in Trump’s Second Term, Brookings Institution

• April 29 — The Stakes of Sino-American AI Competition, Center for a New American Security

• April 29-May 1 — Modern Day Marine Convention

• April 30 — The Hill & Valley Forum