THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | MAY-JUNE 2026 39 Those face-to-face conversations revealed a political undercurrent that data alone could not have captured, and we used this information to caution State leadership to prepare for Brexitrelated economic and political ripples to our trans-Atlantic relationship. Diplomacy depends on presence, curiosity, and empathy. Algorithms cannot walk into a pub, listen to a room, or detect social tension before it appears in polling data. The national security implications of AI adoption are also significant. As AI platforms increasingly rely on private sector infrastructure, governments must confront difficult questions about data stewardship. Diplomatic reporting and analytic frameworks represent decades of institutional memory. Even unclassified systems contain sensitive patterns that, if aggregated or compromised, could expose vulnerabilities or distort policy. Concentrating diplomatic knowledge in proprietary private sector platforms creates dependencies that may not align with long-term American public interests. U.S. government personnel operate under rigorous vetting and constitutional obligations to serve America first. Private firms such as Palantir and others, regardless of technical sophistication, are accountable primarily to shareholders. Their incentives and partnerships—sometimes with foreign actors—are not synonymous with national security priorities. A breach, acquisition, or shift in corporate direction could have consequences far beyond routine contractor risk. As AI systems become embedded in diplomatic workflows, the risks associated with external control of core infrastructure grow accordingly. There is also a cognitive dimension. Overreliance on automated systems can dull analytical instincts and cerebral acuity. Good diplomats question assumptions, synthesize ambiguity, and exercise judgment under pressure. AI should sharpen those skills, not replace them. Systems that handle computation and data management should elevate human reasoning rather than encourage passive acceptance of machine outputs. Next Steps The policy implication of such concerns is not to reject AI but to carefully shape its role. Thoughtful adoption can extend the reach of diplomats, accelerate analysis, and reduce administrative friction. Careless use risks centralizing sensitive knowledge, weakening institutional memory, and encouraging misplaced confidence in automated conclusions. Strategic judgment and diplomatic engagement must remain human responsibilities, with technology supporting statecraft, not redefining it. U.S. diplomacy has always relied on officers willing to operate at the edge of their expertise. AI can serve as a technical partner in moments of crisis, augmenting our ability to respond to complex threats. But it cannot replace the relational foundation of diplomacy or the ethical accountability carried by public servants. In an era of rapid technological change, preserving the human core of foreign policy is not nostalgia. It is a security imperative. Our diplomats remain the nation’s interpreters of a complex world. AI can help us work faster and smarter, but it cannot see, feel, or understand on America’s behalf. Ensuring that it remains an assistant—not a substitute—is essential to the resilience and credibility of U.S. diplomacy. n The author (second from right) meeting with university students in London to discuss the possible impacts of Brexit on science and technology research, March 2016. COURTESY OF MAHVASH SIDDIQUI Careless use risks centralizing sensitive knowledge, weakening institutional memory, and encouraging misplaced confidence in automated conclusions.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=