46 SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2025 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL President determines in writing that the suspension is necessary in the interest of national security because of an emergency.” Neither of those conditions apply, nor have they ever applied to the department, any of its subdivisions, or the Foreign Service. The executive order had four immediate effects on AFSA: (1) elected active-duty members of the AFSA board could no longer use official time to serve in their AFSA roles; (2) AFSA lost access to its offices on the second floor of the Harry S Truman Building; (3) member dues were no longer deducted from employee paychecks and annuity payments; and (4), most important, the executive order stripped AFSA of its right to collectively bargain on behalf of FS members. Reductions in Force As a result, human resources offices at the affected agencies, most particularly the Bureau of Global Talent Management at State, will no longer meet with AFSA unless it is as the legal representative of an individual member. These offices will no longer engage on matters that were once the province of collective bargaining, such as promotion board membership and precepts and changes to the Reduction in Force (RIF) provisions of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). The Trump administration has made no secret of its intent to put a halt to federal union activity and reduce the size of the federal workforce. Without collective bargaining activity and support by unions, there is no check on the administration’s ability to weaken or eliminate workplace protections and impose new politically motivated policies, such as hiring questions designed to measure “patriotism” or evaluation standards based on “fidelity.” Further, the rapidity with which the administration moved to change the RIF provisions of the FAM, as well as parts of the FAM dealing with promotion boards, harassment policy, and other areas related to the working conditions of our members, demonstrates its determination to supersede long-established safeguards for fairness, transparency, and accountability. It is worth recalling that in the late 1990s when reductions in force were imposed on the State Department as an amendment to the 1980 Act via an appropriations bill, the new Section 611 of the FSA specified that implementing regulations must “give due effect” to documented employee knowledge/skills/competencies, tenure of employment, documented performance, and military preference. An update to 3 FAM was made to establish, in effect, reverse retention boards in grades / skill codes identified for reductions. Now, having sidelined labor-management negotiation on this issue, the department unilaterally revised 3 FAM to permit RIFs targeted at incumbents of designated positions— a perversion of the rank-in-person provisions first established by the Rogers Act and a direct violation of the 1980 Act. Inevitably on the horizon, the Dissent Channel protections enshrined in Section 105(b)(3) of the 1980 FSA may be on the chopping block in the wake of the early July suspension of dissenting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees. Stay tuned. AFSA is fighting back in the courts, but as of early July, the outcome was still unclear. A Pivotal Moment Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill interest is growing in efforts to redefine the Foreign Service. The House Foreign Affairs Committee, under the leadership of Chair Brian Mast (R-Fla.), has indicated its intent to consider structural reforms to the Foreign Service and the FSA of 1980, including possible changes to personnel training and alteration of the promotions and assignments processes. Also pending are proposals that would consolidate the Foreign Service in the Department of State by moving the Foreign Commercial Service (Department of Commerce) and the Foreign Agricultural Service (Department of Agriculture) into the Department of State. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could also pursue options to reform the FSA of 1980, but the House has been clearer about its intent in the near future. While AFSA continues to fight for its members’ rights and its status as a union, the association will also be looking at this pivotal moment in the history of the Foreign Service and the possibility of revisions to the laws governing the Foreign Service. The association will continue to identify what is distinctive about the Foreign Service and the elements that must be retained in the Service of the future. n The House Foreign Affairs Committee has indicated its intent to consider structural reforms to the Foreign Service and the FSA of 1980.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=