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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

The FEC Can’t Do Anything. Congress Should Leave It That Way

People stand on the pieces of a shattered United States flag.

Getty Images, mathisworks

The FEC Can’t Do Anything. Congress Should Leave It That Way

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is vital to America’s political process. As the only federal agency dedicated solely to enforcing election laws, the FEC plays a critical role in protecting voters and maintaining a level playing field for political campaigns.

But at this moment, America faces an unfortunate choice: We can have an FEC that does nothing or an FEC that President Trump wields as a partisan weapon against his political opponents.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are President Trump’s Economic Promises Falling Short?

U.S. President Donald Trump takes a question from a reporter in the Oval Office at the White House on May 05, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker

Are President Trump’s Economic Promises Falling Short?

President Donald Trump was elected for a second term after a campaign in which voters were persuaded that he could skillfully manage the economy better than his Democratic opponent. On the campaign trail and since being elected for the second time, President Trump has promised that his policies would bolster economic growth, boost domestic manufacturing with more products “made in the USA,” reduce the price of groceries “on Day 1,” and make America “very rich” again.

These were bold promises, so how is President Trump doing, three and a half months into his term? The evidence so far is as mixed and uncertain as his roller coaster tariff policy.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn on May 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump walks towards Marine One on the South Lawn on May 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Trump’s First 100 Days on Trial

100 Days, 122 Rulings

Presidents are typically evaluated by their accomplishments in the first 100 days. Donald Trump's second term stands out for a different reason: the unprecedented number of executive actions challenged and blocked by the courts. In just over three months, Trump issued more than 200 executive orders, targeting areas such as climate policy, civil service regulations, immigration, and education funding.

However, the most telling statistic is not the volume of orders but the judiciary's response: over 120 rulings have paused or invalidated these directives. This positions the courts, rather than Congress, as the primary institutional check on the administration's agenda. With a legislature largely aligned with the executive, the judiciary has become a critical counterbalance. The sustainability of this dynamic raises questions about the resilience of democratic institutions when one branch shoulders the burden of oversight responsibilities.

Keep ReadingShow less
The President Must Affirm His Commitment to the Constitution
The preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Getty Images, Douglas Sacha

The President Must Affirm His Commitment to the Constitution

The United States of America is at a precarious moment. Our Constitutional republic is hanging by a thread when the President himself seems uncertain about his obligation to uphold the Constitution — while those who do are being honored for their courage, as though fidelity to our founding principles were exceptional rather than fundamental. The U.S. Constitution is what holds us together as a nation. Without allegiance to it, I fear we risk losing our very identity.

Meanwhile, the legislative branch envisioned by our founders as having the most power has completely abdicated its duty of good governance, surrendering instead to partisanship.

Keep ReadingShow less