18 MARCH-APRIL 2026 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL frankly to an administration that confuses criticism with disloyalty. And the bitterness grows. An Epidemic of Suspicion Marco Rubio’s State Department would be well served by establishing clear standards and clear processes for senior appointments. The leadership of the Ben Franklin Fellowship could come out of the shadows and argue publicly for practices that would demonstrate that its call for regional recruitment and “merit” is not a cover for limiting the Foreign Service to particular social and political views or returning to the bigotry in assignments and behavior experienced in the past by women and Black officers I know. Beyond the BFF example, what concerns me is that the changes inside the department are leading to suspicions about any career officers appointed to senior positions in the current administration. Of course, there were very few such nominations in 2025. But I am seeing repeated assertions in emails and chats forwarded to me that such appointments, including those selected for some ambassadorships, are of unqualified individuals appointed only because of loyalty to political views and BFF connections. Some of this may be true. Suspicions are fueled by the virtual abandonment of selection procedures that, if sometimes opaque, at least maintained a process involving senior career officers as well as political appointees and 360-degree views of candidates for senior-level positions. The danger is that the door could be opened to regularly purging Service ranks each time there is a change in the party in power, as well as a long-term division into “them” and “us” within the Foreign Service. Highly qualified FSOs at the top of their game would be forced out along with the political appointees. The damage to the State Department would be institutional. American diplomacy would be deprived of the experience and ability shaped by long service in multiple assignments for differing administrations. Repeated purges of career officers seen as part of the “other” party would weaken American diplomacy. The existence of nonpartisan diplomacy would be a thing of the past. And without a nonpartisan and cohesive staff, the department would lose the skills and courage to contribute to policy or effectively implement decisions. The Need for Dialogue There is an urgent need for dialogue. For years, every FSO I know has told aspiring students that an essential element of diplomacy is listening; diplomats must understand friends and opponents to craft ways to advance U.S. national interests. Yet now FSOs, the nation’s best diplomats, seem to have lost the ability to talk to one another. Dedicated colleagues who have all worked in the nation’s interest seem unable or unwilling to explore whether mutually claimed principles of merit and equal opportunity can lead to agreement on how to achieve these ends. We are becoming a dysfunctional family. Whether the division within career ranks can be moderated I do not know. Speaking Out is the Journal’s opinion forum, a place for lively discussion of issues affecting the U.S. Foreign Service and American diplomacy. The views expressed are those of the author; their publication here does not imply endorsement by the American Foreign Service Association. Responses are welcome; send them to journal@afsa.org. I do believe that officers who advocate going down a very partisan path, whichever side they are on, should reflect on the consequences and risks of the path they are choosing. Certainly, we must continue to push back against the tendencies of this administration to reshape the Foreign Service into political and social loyalists. At the same time, it would be well to refrain from advance judgment of career officers appointed to senior positions. Let performance determine future judgments and avoid blanket condemnations and future collective purges. Secretary Rubio and his team have a heavy burden to diminish suspicion and bring real transparency and nonpolitical processes to American diplomacy now riven by fear and suspicion. The leaders of the Ben Franklin Fellowship need to seriously consider the long-term consequences of their current identification that appears from the outside to merge a political with a policy orientation. And AFSA, should it win its lawsuit, also will need to grapple with how to bind up the wounds inside the Foreign Service. In his January-February FSJ column, AFSA President John Dinkelman wrote of the need to “address the increasingly divisive tone of discourse within the Foreign Service.” He noted that the next generation entering the Foreign Service needs “to see a workplace where our geographic origins, race, gender, or even political opinions create a stronger whole.” He is right. There is already a great need for Foreign Service and Civil Service teamwork and energy to rebuild together from the current uncertainty. Our future as a professional diplomatic service that is the envy of the world depends on it. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=