Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump Administration Stifles U.S. Embassies Abroad

Trump Administration Stifles U.S. Embassies Abroad
Getty Images, Richard Drury

WASHINGTON – Since his return to office in January, President Donald Trump has ushered in an era of enormous upheaval in the federal government: from dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development in early February to the recent announcement of extensive tariffs. But amid these sweeping changes, the quiet change in U.S. embassy policies is going largely unnoticed.

Since Trump’s inauguration, embassies have largely avoided drawing undue attention from the Oval Office. Under orders from Washington, they’ve avoided contact with the press and visiting Americans, and in at least one case, canceled a long-planned embassy appointment with visiting American students without explanation.


Ian Kelly, the former U.S. ambassador to Georgia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, called the changes to the Foreign Service a “verticalization of foreign policy,” with all instructions and authority coming from the top down, leaving little discretion for diplomats on the ground.

He described the Trump administration’s approach to the Foreign Service as eerily similar to policies in what he called “less democratic states.”

A former U.S. ambassador with knowledge of the canceled student visit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that ambassadors have been required to request explicit permission from the State Department in Washington for any public engagements.

In the past, ambassadors have typically been afforded a degree of freedom in managing their appointments, determining with whom they met based on availability and scheduling.

“It's unheard of that an ambassador would have to go back to the State Department and ask for specific permission to meet with any group,” the former ambassador said.

The State Department refused to comment.

An atypical transition

While all ambassadors are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they generally fall into two informal categories: so-called “political appointees,” often large donors, who come from outside of the Foreign Service, and career foreign service officers, who are trained and experienced diplomats recruited from within the Service.

Several diplomats explained that when a new president comes to power, political appointees are generally replaced, while career foreign service officers are usually retained.

As a new administration finds its footing, some embassies may not be assigned a new ambassador for months, meaning there’s often little guidance at first.

“You're in a holding pattern,” said Gordon Duguid, a retired senior diplomat. “You're not going to do anything different than you have been doing until you receive specific instructions.”

While some uncertainty is normal, the level of chaos that has marked communications since the beginning of Trump’s second term has been unprecedented, even in comparison to his first term, several diplomats said.

Kelly was appointed ambassador during the Obama administration and spent 15 months working under the Trump administration before retiring in 2018. As a foreign service officer specializing in media relations, Kelly recalled that, during Trump’s first term, guidance was hard to come by.

“Under Trump, I didn’t say much at all. I couldn’t,” Kelly said. “I didn’t know what to say, and what I knew I could say, I didn’t agree with.”

Silence at the State Department

In early February, Trump signed an executive order entitled, “One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations.” The order called for a “reform” of the Foreign Service and authorized the Secretary of State to revise key documents, including the Foreign Affairs Manual, which governs much of Service policy.

“All officers or employees charged with implementing the foreign policy of the United States must under Article II do so under the direction and authority of the President,” the order reads. “Failure to faithfully implement the President’s policy is grounds for professional discipline, including separation.”

That has put pressure on foreign service officers to avoid saying anything that might put them at odds with the Trump administration.

“Like so much else in this administration, it's kind of pre-World War II-type diplomacy where you just keep your head down, keep your mouth shut, don't talk to the press,” Kelly said.

The current level of silence from the State Department is unusual, Kelly added. Typically, State Department employees are granted some degree of discretion to speak with the press. That appears to have changed with the current administration.

Duguid’s impression was similar.

“Nobody is being given permission to speak up,” he said.

Many in the Foreign Service likely haven’t forgotten the first Trump administration’s fury.

Trump’s first impeachment shined a rare spotlight on America’s foreign service officers. In 2019, he ousted then-Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, just a month before his fateful July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the call, Trump pressured Zelenskyy to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of Trump’s political opponent Joe Biden, in return for releasing aid that was already approved by Congress.

During the impeachment proceedings, Yovanovitch and several other top diplomats testified about the smear campaign Trump and his allies orchestrated against her.

“She suffered adverse consequences because her name did reach Donald Trump,” Kelly said.

In retaliation for their testimony in the impeachment proceedings, Trump later fired key witnesses, including Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman—the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council—and Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland.

“That was all because of the vindictiveness of the president of the United States. I mean, you can imagine what a chilling effect that has,” Kelly said. “People learned their lesson: you don’t want the Eye of Sauron on you.”

Budget cuts and a shrinking workforce

Members of the Foreign Service were among those to receive the “fork in the road” and “what did you do last week?” emails from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, although the State Department instructed its employees not to respond.

“It seems like they're trying to have a reduction in force without having to go through the legal obligations that come with a reduction in force,” Duguid said. In his 31 years at the State Department, he added, a reduction in force was sometimes discussed but never implemented.

If a reduction in force is implemented, he said, “personnel who have fewer labor protections … would be the first to go.”

But much of day-to-day embassy work, like processing visas, is done by those less protected junior officers. Without those workers, Americans living abroad may be left without access to key services.

The turbulence to come

The contradictory combination of little guidance and heavy-handed intervention in a traditionally apolitical workforce has led to chaos and confusion.

“Basically, you have a whole lot of people trying to do the job that they were instructed to do with no new guidance and now no money,” Duguid said.

In his first term, Trump proposed cutting the State Department budget by more than 30%, although Congress ultimately rejected the cuts. But that proposal may offer a glimpse into the new administration’s plans.

The first Trump administration was largely unprepared to take power, leaving diplomats able to continue their work without much interference. This time around, however, it appears that the administration has quickly moved to significantly tighten its control over the Foreign Service.

“People are extremely reticent to do anything in public for fear of getting crosswise with the new administration,” Kelly said. “This is going to be a rollercoaster ride.”

Sasha Draeger-Mazer is a national security reporter for Medill News Service and studies journalism and political science at Northwestern University.

Read More

Time to Toughen Up: Democrats Face a Crossroads

Democrats Donkey lifts weights

Time to Toughen Up: Democrats Face a Crossroads

As the 2026 midterms loom, a simmering debate within Democratic circles has reached a boiling point: Should the party abandon the moral high ground and play political hardball?

In recent years, Democrats have leaned heavily on the ethos of civility and hope—famously embodied by Michelle Obama’s 2016 rallying cry, “When they go low, we go high.” But with the GOP embracing increasingly combative rhetoric and tactics, some strategists argue it’s time for Democrats to recalibrate their messaging—and their muscle.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Drug Price Ultimatum and the Rise of Enemy Politics
shallow focus photography of prescription bottle with capsules

Trump’s Drug Price Ultimatum and the Rise of Enemy Politics

In an era increasingly defined by transactional politics, the rhetoric of ultimatum has become one of President Donald Trump's favorite tools. When he declared to pharmaceutical giants on August 1st, "We will deploy every tool in our arsenal" should they fail to lower drug prices, it echoed a familiar pattern of the use of "demand" to shift from negotiation to confrontation. Trump's all-too-familiar pattern of prescribing with deadlines, threats of tariffs or sanctions, and appeals to fairness or national pride.

In his letter to 17 major drug manufacturers, Trump demanded that drug manufacturers slash prices to match "most favored nation" levels—the lowest rates offered in other developed countries. He emphasized that Americans are "demanding lower drug prices and they need them today." His language, though cloaked in populist concern, carried a veiled threat:

Keep ReadingShow less
The Politics of Compromise and Conviction

"Scott Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics..." writes Luke Harris.

Getty Images, Kent Nishimura

The Politics of Compromise and Conviction

Scott Turner was a Texas House Representative, now serving in the Trump Administration as the Secretary of U.S. Housing & Urban Development (HUD). In the Texas House, he talked about “being the best we can,” and espoused high standards for himself and his colleagues; however, in his current position, he has voiced no complaints or objections against the administration or the Republican Party. Perhaps for less cynical reasons than power itself, but to pursue his policies on housing and healthcare. Turner is a brilliant case study for how ambition causes politicians to accept feeble attempts to reason away their beliefs or ethics, always for something greater, something they can achieve with one more step. That “one more step” toward completely surrendering their integrity, confounding their ethical clarity, and adopting whatever means meet their ends.

During a keynote address in 2014, he spoke of the duty to break the status quo, Democrat or Republican, he said, “We need servant leaders…. People who live by conviction and principle, not by the waves of the sea of what’s popular today.” He shared his experience growing up in a poor home, and his father working two jobs. At his confirmation, he talked empathetically about the homelessness crisis and how his family took in his uncle, providing him with the services he needed. Trump has made comments expressing disdain for the homeless; he said these people were hurting the “prestige” of major cities, and many homeless people might prefer their situation.

Keep ReadingShow less