BY DARROW GODESKI MERTON, FSJ WRITING COMPETITION 2ND PLACE WINNER

Most studies on modernizing American diplomacy call for more officers and funding for the State Department, which aligns with our traditionally resource-intensive approach to foreign policy. Yet the perennial call for more resources can serve as a distraction from more cost-effective reforms. In coming years, it will be critical to find ways to enhance the Foreign Service—without relying on institutional expansion—for two reasons. First, the American public broadly believes we should freeze or cut our spending on foreign affairs, not increase it. Second, the department needs to adapt to a more competitive global landscape where our historical advantage in diplomatic budgets and personnel, relative to other powers, can no longer be taken for granted.

While the U.S. may or may not have more military marching band members than diplomats, we greatly outnumber other countries’ foreign services—to give just one example, the U.S. has nearly as many personnel in Mission India as India has foreign service officers abroad. Competitors have learned to do more with less: the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs budget was roughly one-tenth the size of the State Department operations budget in 2022, but it is increasing rapidly—and the PRC already has 265 bilateral diplomatic missions around the world, compared to our 249 posts.

In that spirit, here are three suggestions to make the Foreign Service more effective, dollar for dollar, officer for officer.

Train for Functional Job Skills, Hire for Language

State is currently expanding the Foreign Service Institute, aiming to more closely match the training float that the Department of Defense enjoys. But how much we train is not nearly as important as what we train. Today, many FSOs can count the time they spent in language training in years and the functional training in weeks. This is backward, as it plays against one of our great national strengths—a deep pool of linguistic talent—while neglecting our institutional weaknesses.

State lags behind other diplomatic services in functional job training, both in terms of learning basic tradecraft as well as specialty topics like technology and energy diplomacy. Outside of FSI’s standout Econ Course, opportunities for officers to dive deep into practice areas are scarce. Given these gaps—and the increasingly specialized nature of many job portfolios—it is paradoxical that we allocate the bulk of our limited training time to language study.

Consider that for virtually any language, from Russian to Tagalog to Swahili, the U.S. already has tens of thousands of citizens whose fluency far surpasses what most FSOs can attain after FSI language training. We should capitalize on this natural bounty of language talent. Instead of rewarding modest language skills with a modest bump on the FSOA, the department should vigorously recruit candidates with ILR Level 4 speaking/reading skills, which would not only improve our overall language proficiency, cultural insight, and diversity but also allow officers more time for functional training.

This is not to say that we should shut down FSI’s language programs or only hire candidates already fluent in critical languages. Circulation of officers across geographic regions is key for disseminating fresh ideas. We should rather aim for a more equal split between language and functional training and expand the number of specialized courses that FSI offers. Many overseas roles would benefit more from six months each of functional and language training rather than a full year of language alone, and we should give posts and officers the latitude to choose what will best serve their portfolios.

Embrace Generative AI as a Force Multiplier

While technology has not traditionally been the department’s strong suit, our Center for Analytics is now piloting one of the first large language models (LLM) specifically designed for a federal agency. State is a perfect fit for generative AI: Our voracious hunger for “paper”—the decision memos and briefing checklists that consume countless hours of productivity—has produced terabytes of archived documents that can be used to train proprietary models. The real challenge, however, lies not just in developing generative AI services tailored for diplomacy but also in transforming our work culture to fully embrace the labor-saving potential of these tools.

While data privacy and security are valid concerns, the biggest hurdle to AI implementation will be traditional mindsets about how officers should spend their time and what tasks require a human touch. As the pilot LLM program rolls out, the department should authorize and train officers on how to use generative AI for every kind of SBU work product: cables, media analyses, congressional reports, and yes, even EERs. Each hour spent at the office working on paper is an hour not spent engaging directly with foreign audiences—a duty that will remain uniquely human. Embracing generative AI will produce more timely and relevant paper while increasing the time available to achieve our primary function: engaging external, not internal, stakeholders.

Create a Culture of Accountability

The State Department has taken a positive step in conducting exit interviews to glean insights into talent attrition. Knowing is half the battle—but only half. If we want to retain talent, State needs to take stronger action against harassment and abusive behavior, which are well-documented drivers of the diversity deficit in the upper ranks. The Foreign Service’s frequent rotations and chummy personal–professional relationships often lead managers to wait out problematic officers until they are shuffled off to the next post.

Fortunately, there is a blueprint to tackle these problems: In 2020, former Representative Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) introduced the State Harassment and Assault Prevention and Eradication (SHAPE) Act. Although it stalled in committee, nothing stops State from adopting its straightforward measures.

The SHAPE Act creates an Office of Employee Advocacy to aid victims of harassment and abuse during investigations, setting up a 24/7 international hotline for officers, eligible family members (EFMs), and locally employed (LE) staff (who are often particularly vulnerable to retribution). Critically, it also makes it easier for State to suspend or separate staff who have engaged in sexual harassment or assault. Too often, harassment cases are handled informally, despite the Foreign Affairs Manual stating that measures like involuntary curtailment are not to be used as a substitute for disciplinary action.

While the recently announced anti-bullying policy and the Ombuds Office getting started on staffing the Workplace Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (wCPRc) are positive developments, those and similar efforts will require teeth. We need to overhaul areas in which the current system is overly deferential to bad actors, which is a surefire way to undermine morale and productivity, entrenching deadweight at the expense of our best talent.

No living American policymaker has known a time in which the U.S. did not enjoy a lopsided advantage in foreign policy resources. That era is coming to a close. Our future lies in adaptation—mastering functional training, leveraging AI, and enforcing accountability—to ensure the Foreign Service remains effective on the world stage.

Darrow Godeski Merton is an economic officer at U.S. Consulate General Shanghai. He has previously served at Embassy Juba, Consulate General Guangzhou, and the U.S. Mission to the African Union, in addition to domestic tours with the Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, the Somalia desk, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee as a Pearson Fellow.