THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH-APRIL 2026 17 Efforts by diplomats in residence (DIR), Foreign Service officers posted to universities around the U.S., could be redirected if they were not enlisting a sufficiently diversified social base. Instead, the DIR program has been closed. New outreach seems to be limited to universities with a particular social and (Christian) religious orientation. I’ve heard stories that certain Christian universities have an advantage in providing preparation for their students to pass the Foreign Service exam, leading to suspicion that either they are receiving special information or even that the new tests have been leaked to them. The rumors are not substantiated and may be false, but without transparency suspicion flourishes. As dangerous as these developments are, the growing politicization within the ranks poses a greater long-term challenge. The Trump administration has three more years in office. Many of its directives can be changed or reversed by the next administration. AFSA has a good chance of winning its court battle and returning as the recognized union of the U.S. Foreign Service. In this event, it will have the opportunity to force negotiation of many policies affecting promotion standards, the composition of promotion boards, and other policies that touch on personnel actions. But this would not necessarily fix the larger problem. If the politicization and divisions so prevalent in American politics become entrenched within the Service, the prospects even under future administrations for a nonpartisan and professional diplomacy are gloomy indeed. Removals and Appointments This issue did not begin with the Trump administration. Most new administrations remove senior officers they perceive as being too closely identified with the policies of the previous administration. Yet now, the tendency is growing by leaps and bounds. The first Trump administration pushed out an unusually high number of senior career officers, including a disproportionate number of officers from underrepresented groups. At that time, I and many other retired FSOs urged Foreign Service members to remain and to loyally carry out the policies of elected leaders. Yet when the Biden administration came into office, it overlooked several officers who had remained in acting senior positions. Some very capable and experienced retired officers were brought back, but comparatively few officers who had served in senior positions during Trump I were moved up to Senate-confirmed positions. The current Trump administration has taken this practice of getting rid of serving officers in leadership positions to new heights, rapidly ending promising careers, including the dismissal of numerous senior minority and female officers, many with distinguished records of serving multiple administrations in difficult and sometimes dangerous postings. Case in Point Removals and appointments are now leading to growing divisions within the Foreign Service itself. The Ben Franklin Fellowship (BFF) is a case in point. The friction surrounding it is an example of the larger problem. According to its website and official statements, the organization is devoted to overturning policies of DEI and returning to what it calls merit-based principles without any form of discrimination. Its website states that it is “non-partisan and not affiliated with any political party.” But many believe that, in practice, its objectives are more radical. BFF members probably hold diversified viewpoints. Yet when the organization’s chair characterizes a removal of career ambassadors never done on this scale by any previous administration as “just the speeding up of the [normal] turnover,” he seems to be an administration apologist. In further stating that the action reflects the corridor reputation of those removed as “opposition to Trump,” he is moving from espousing a conservative viewpoint to one that is expressly partisan. And when the BFF chair asserts that 90 percent of the Foreign Service leans Democrat and must be reshaped to reflect “a country that ideologically breaks 50-50” for Trump, he is calling for a major reshaping of the Foreign Service on a partisan basis. BFF is open “by invitation only” to those who share its principles. The suspicion aroused by this secretiveness is reinforced by the presence of many fellows appointed as senior bureau officials. There is a perception that being a member of BFF gives preference in bidding, assignments, and access to senior State Department officials. Franklin Fellows I have talked with say this is exaggerated. They do have access to senior officials but say they are often surprised by personnel decisions. They point out that BFF members are among those forced out of government by the July 2025 State Department reduction in force (RIF). They argue that the Ben Franklin Fellowship simply gives a voice to conservative views that have been long marginalized in the Foreign Service. Yet they also note the difficulty of speaking
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=