THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MARCH-APRIL 2026 21 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. have no impact on career prospects and advancement. That is clearly not the case. Politicization. Several senior activeduty officers who are members of BFF have published op-eds or columns praising and supporting President Trump’s domestic political agenda on issues such as immigration enforcement. This is unprecedented. Examples include a currently serving career U.S. ambassador publishing an article denouncing DEIA and a currently serving career official publishing articles under a pseudonym calling for mass deportations and increased travel restrictions on certain countries. Career federal employees have traditionally avoided involvement with domestic political issues, not just because of the Hatch Act but also because the Foreign Service has traditionally avoided domestic politics, which could complicate the obligation of career employees to work for every administration, which they take an oath to do. Antimeritocracy. The BFF claims that “meritocracy” was harmed by DEIA efforts before January 2025. But in the new model, merit is overshadowed by political allegiance to the president and association with the BFF and its ideology. Our history going back to the 19th century reminds us that politicization is usually the enemy of merit and capability. De-diversification. BFF members claim that they support a pure vision of meritocracy and represent everyone who shares it. But BFF membership is overwhelmingly white and male. It is not unreasonable for critics to say that the BFF’s focus on “meritocracy” is really about returning white men to exclusive leadership roles. Rejection of one’s own institution. BFF members tend to be publicly dismissive of the U.S. Foreign Service and its legacy. To be sure, there is plenty of room for criticism of the status quo, and many of us have shared it. But the overall tone and viewpoints of members of the BFF are rife with hostility toward the Foreign Service and its members. Turning one’s back on the institution and the colleagues one has served alongside is neither constructive nor attractive. Recruitment bias. This administration is unilaterally revamping the Foreign Service entrance process, without transparency on the process and without consulting with AFSA. State is requiring all candidates who had successfully passed all exams and were on the register before the change in the Foreign Service Officer Test (FSOT) to retake the new exam as amended. Candidates who have had the rules changed retroactively after successfully completing the application process will in many cases abandon their career aspirations with great disappointment and dismay. New applicants may well believe that there is a political component to applying to join the Foreign Service (whether or not there actually is). Blurred lines. The long-standing tradition that career employees do not engage in partisan politics or endorse controversial political positions outside their work responsibilities was not only a response to the Hatch Act and its prohibitions. It has long been understood that for career federal employees to maintain a long-term professional career, which provides our country with experience, knowledge, and demonstrated ability, it was essential that those employees avoid getting entangled in partisan politics. The active-duty members of BFF have chosen to align themselves with the politics of this president and administration. When the administration changes, they are going to find themselves in a very awkward and disadvantaged position. What Now? BFF and its current role in the State Department and Foreign Service is a reality, unlikely to go away before the end of this administration. That said, it is important for all of us to stand up and defend the nonpartisan, apolitical tradition of the U.S. Foreign Service, now 102 years old in its current form. We must reject the notion that senior officials, from the Deputy Secretary of State on down, can urge career employees to associate themselves with one side of the political divide in our country in order to advance their careers. We must stand up for the principles of diversity and inclusion, even while recognizing that some previous efforts went off track and provoked a backlash. In that regard, we must stand up for the vision of our Foreign Service being representative of our country in every respect. And we must reject the notion that meritocracy somehow means restoring white men to their position of privilege and domination. We also must do what we can to remind new members of the Foreign Service of the importance of staying out of politics and serving the administration in office without fear or favor. Let’s have confidence in our integrity, our traditions, and our people. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=