THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2025 45 In addition, agencies frequently met with AFSA to discuss those areas that were nonmandatory, to craft practical Foreign Service–specific policies. An example of this were the criteria by which someone from outside the FS could fill an FS position overseas. The State Department can, but doesn’t have to, negotiate so-called permissive areas of bargaining—but once signing an agreement, the department is bound by it. As a matter of practice, AFSA represented the interests of all bargaining unit members (those who were dues-paying members as well as those who were not) when it negotiated and consulted with management regarding conditions of employment. AFSA also represented the interest of all bargaining unit members when it testified on Capitol Hill. AFSA President Eric Rubin used his March 2020 President’s Views column to mark the 40th anniversary of the FSA and to call for a return to the consensus underlying the act’s passage: “The Foreign Service needs to be at the center of the U.S. foreign policy process. It was widely accepted that good policy could not be made without professional expertise and advice.” Ambassador Rubin acknowledged: “We’re in a different era, and we need to engage with members of Congress and congressional staff to ensure that the core elements of the Foreign Service Act are protected and reinforced, while at the same time being prepared to innovate and modernize.” That same year, Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs published “A U.S. Diplomatic Service for the 21st Century,” a study led by retired Ambassadors Nicholas Burns, Marc Grossman, and Marcie Ries that called specifically for a revision to the FS Act. Among the changes sought by the report was an increased focus on training and greater numbers of employees supporting increased training time, adoption of a ROTC-like educational program, adoption of a requirement for rotational assignments in other agencies, establishment of a Diplomatic Reserve Corps, and approval of a new name: the United States Diplomatic Service. A follow-up report in 2022, this one sponsored by Arizona State University, called for amendments to the FSA that strengthened the role of career chiefs of mission overseas, expanded training opportunities including an enhanced training float, and furthered promotion of diversity and recruitment for specifically needed skills. The FS Act Undermined With the arrival of a new administration in January 2025, direct attacks on the Foreign Service Act of 1980 and the Service itself began. Government employees who swore an oath to the Constitution and not to any administration were described as a threat to an ideologically driven agenda. The demolition of USAID began in January, and dismantling of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (including Voice of America) followed, along with reductions in force (RIFs) at the State Department in July. A March 27 executive order, “Exclusions from Federal LaborManagement Relations Programs,” set out to ban union activity among federal employees deemed to be involved in “national security” work—without any evidence of such a threat. The State Department, USAID, and USAGM were included in the order, but not the Commerce or Agriculture departments. This was directly counter to Section 1001 of the FSA: “The Congress finds that … labor organizations and collective bargaining in the Service are in the public interest and are consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government. The provisions of this chapter should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the requirement of an effective and efficient Government.” In rescinding these rights, the administration has demonstrated its contempt for that congressional imperative by cynically exaggerating and misapplying the carve-out exceptions of Section 1003(b), which provide that “the President may by Executive order exclude any subdivision of the Department from coverage under this chapter if the President determines that—(1) the subdivision has as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work, and (2) the provisions of this chapter cannot be applied to that subdivision in a manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.” Section 1003(c) further provides: “The President may by Executive order suspend any provision of this chapter with respect to any post, bureau, office, or activity of the Department, if the In rescinding these rights, the administration has demonstrated its contempt for that congressional imperative.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=