56 MARCH-APRIL 2026 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL STATE VP VOICE | BY ROHIT NEPAL AFSA NEWS Contact: nepal@afsa.org The Erosion of Trust Ambassadors Ron Neumann and Eric Rubin have laid bare the implications of the outsized role of the Ben Franklin Fellowship (BFF) in today’s State Department. In this edition’s Speaking Out columns, they raise essential questions about politicization, the future of the Foreign Service, and how we might move beyond this difficult period. Ambassador Neumann argues for dialogue within the Foreign Service family, and some BFF members are seeking dialogue as well. The painful truth, however, is that the conditions necessary for genuine dialogue do not exist today. The State Department is now gripped by a culture of fear and intimidation created by arbitrary reductions in force (RIFs), unilateral changes to assignment and promotion processes, the mass recall of career ambassadors, and countless other actions that undermine the foundations of the Foreign Service and our apolitical, nonpartisan nature. Most FS members are understandably afraid to speak out, fearful that leadership will deem any comment about the department’s direction as disloyal and career-ending. As a result, the voices most essential to any meaningful dialogue—those of active-duty members—will likely be absent. As AFSA State VP, I believe we need to speak frankly about the BFF, including its role in creating this environment. BFF members are no longer insurgents challenging a system they believed unfairly imposed diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) requirements. The BFF—and, by extension, its members—are now effectively in charge. The department has fulfilled the group’s primary objective by unilaterally eliminating DEIA precepts and retroactively promoting those who were allegedly disadvantaged by their inclusion. Many BFF members now occupy senior leadership positions. The widespread belief that BFF members received favorable treatment in the recent bidding cycle underscores the perception that the BFF is a preponderant force within State. Under these circumstances, it is fair for rank-and-file FS members to demand greater transparency about BFF’s role and views on the sweeping changes that have shaken the Foreign Service since January 2025. Why Invitation Only? Strangely, for an organization that claims to be leading an effort to “reform the U.S. State Department and the diplomatic service,” the BFF has chosen to wall itself off, extending membership only by invitation. This exclusivity runs counter to the values of the Service, creates a stark insider–outsider divide, and fuels a growing sense of division in our ranks. AFSA, by contrast, welcomes all FS members to join, participate, and run for office. Employee organizations (EOs, formerly called employee affinity groups) were similarly open—and were all suspended following the January 2025 executive order dismantling DEI programs in federal agencies. Do BFF colleagues believe that restricting membership serves our shared interest in a unified and effective Foreign Service? Reinstate Employee Organizations? A year into the administration, more than a dozen EOs that once provided professional development, mentorship, and support across Republican and Democratic administrations alike remain shuttered— while the BFF operates with the department’s imprimatur and participation of senior leadership. The BFF understands the important role such groups play; its own statement of purpose asserts that it “fills a need that is not addressed by any other existing academic or professional association, or by any specialized ‘affinity groups.’” Yet the BFF has remained silent as the department dismantled those very associations. Many fellows also belong to AFSA, but the fellowship has likewise said nothing about the stripping of collective bargaining rights and the protections those rights afforded all members of the Foreign Service. Silence on the RIF? We are all proud of the Foreign Service commitment to merit. In our “up-or-out” system, that commitment is why we eagerly await promotion cables, meticulously document performance in EERs, and draft award nominations for deserving colleagues. That is precisely why the July 2025 RIFs were such an affront. While the department has the authority to conduct RIFs when necessary, it deliberately changed the rules and conducted RIFs without any consideration of merit. More than half of the 240 RIFed FS employees were placed in competition groups of one, simply because of the job they happened to occupy at the time. At least 10 of them were also recommended for promotion by the boards. In short, the RIFs made a mockery of merit. Despite professing a commitment to “merit in federal government personnel matters,” the BFF has stayed silent about these RIFs and the betrayal of merit principles they represent. This silence cannot be attributed to a lack of views on recent developments: The BFF has publicly defended the December 2025 mass recall of career ambassadors and attacked AFSA’s advocacy efforts. Without clear answers to these questions, it is difficult—indeed, unrealistic—to imagine meaningful dialogue between the BFF and those of us who are not in the club. n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=