Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

'Our tax dollars pay your salary'

State Department

Bureaucrats, like those who work at the State Department, are earning their salaries, writes Varga.

Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Varga, author of “ Under Chad’s Spell,” was a Foreign Service office r, serving in Dubai, Damascus, Casablanca and Toronto

Two Americans were asking for a meeting with me. They had traveled from Alabama to Washington to lobby for more assistance to Lebanon, the country from which their fathers had fled to begin lives in the United States. I was the desk officer for Lebanon at the State Department. It was a fraught time with American hostages still being held.

The 1992 election had just happened, and Bill Clinton was the new president. I welcomed them into my tiny office and offered Arabic coffee that I brewed myself.

They told me about how their families had to reconfigure in America since Lebanon’s destructive civil war had forced their fathers to flee. They said they were born in America — and had U.S. passports — but still felt an obligation to try to assist their extended families back home in Tripoli and Beirut. I asked what they wanted from the U.S. government.


“We want Lebanon to be a higher priority,” Mustapha said.

“It seems like Israel gets all the focus. The Middle East has so many countries that struggle under anti-democratic regimes. We think the U.S. can do so much more,” explained Abderrahim.

I explained that my whole focus was the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Lebanon. I told them that I often worked long hours, even on weekends, when some new crisis developed.

“It’s good to hear that,” Mustapha said. “I’m sure the guy in this job under Bush wasn’t doing that.”

“I don’t have to remind you that our tax dollars pay your salary. We just want to know that that money is being well-managed in regard to Lebanon,” Abderrahim added. A little bit of sharper tone came with that warning.

I didn’t have the heart to tell them that as a career Foreign Service officer, I had been the desk officer under George H.W. Bush. I was continuing in the same job, even with a change in presidents. I assured them that we were doing all we could, mentioning that I had held a recent meeting with the staff of Sen. Jesse Helms. The senator had placed a hold on our ability to make available to the Lebanese army excess defense articles that the Pentagon no longer needed.

They left my office, seeming satisfied with what they had accomplished. But it left me with the feeling that so many Americans didn’t fully grasp how the career bureaucracy keeps the government operating, through every cycle of new occupants in the Oval Office.

In this year of so much polarizing discussion about how Donald Trump intends to reform the agencies of the executive branch, I think it’s important to underscore the value of what the MAGA folks malign as the “deep state.” Foreign Service officers work in embassies and consulates throughout the world. While ambassadors are often political appointees, most of the other officers are part of the career service, in place no matter which political party controls the White House or Congress. That’s a good thing.

We want continuity in our policies in determining our bilateral relationships with the nations of the world. We want institutional memory to be retained as to what has been previously agreed to in establishing these working relationships. If you have a wholesale change of these career officials, you risk having to reinvent the wheel all over again. What a waste that is.

During my first assignment as a Foreign Service officer in Dubai in 1985, I had to meet with a U.S. flag vessel’s crew in the Persian Gulf after it had been boarded and held by the Iranian Navy. I had to interview the crew about the way the Iranians had treated them. The Iran-Iraq war was keeping everyone nervous. Under a ticking clock, Washington wanted to know how serious the breach had been. Was any retaliatory action by U.S. forces warranted? Fortunately, that instance proved to be a mere skirmish in the battle for influence in the Middle East.

But as you consider these claims among politicians that bureaucrats are the devil that must be expunged, think of the career diplomats who work tirelessly in some of the most dangerous places in the world to ensure consistency in U.S. foreign policy. Yes, your tax dollars are paying their salaries. I assure you you’re getting a great return on your investment.

Read More

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Constitution
Imagining constitutions
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

A Bold Civic Renaissance for America’s 250th

Every September 17, Americans mark Constitution Day—the anniversary of the signing of our nation’s foundational charter in 1787. The day is often commemorated with classroom lessons and speaking events, but it is more than a ceremonial anniversary. It is an invitation to ask: What does it mean to live under a constitution that was designed as a charge for each generation to study, debate, and uphold its principles? This year, as we look toward the semiquincentennial of our nation in 2026, the question feels especially urgent.

The decade between 1776 and 1787 was defined by a period of bold and intentional nation and national identity building. In that time, the United States declared independence, crafted its first national government, won a war to make their independence a reality, threw out the first government when it failed, and forged a new federal government to lead the nation. We stand at a similar inflection point. The coming decade, from the nation’s semiquincentennial in 2026 to the Constitution’s in 2037, offers a parallel opportunity to reimagine and reinvigorate our American civic culture. Amid the challenges we face today, there’s an opportunity to study, reflect, and prepare to write the next chapters in our American story—it is as much about the past 250 years, as it is about the next 250 years. It will require the same kind of audacious commitment to building for the future that was present at the nation’s outset.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting maps

Two bills have been introduced to Congress that aim to ban mid-decade redistricting on the federal level and contain provisions making an exception for mid-decade redistricting.

Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

Congress Bill Spotlight: Anti-Rigging Act, Banning Mid-Decade Redistricting As Texas and California Are Attempting

Trump claims Republicans are “entitled” to five more Texas House seats.

Context: in the news

In August, the Republican-controlled Texas state legislature approved a rare “mid-decade” redistricting for U.S. House seats, with President Donald Trump’s encouragement.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

The Cheshire Cat (John Tenniel) Devouring the Gerrymander (Elkanah Tisdale )

Independent Madness- or How the Cheshire Cat Can Slay the Gerrymander

America has a long, if erratic, history of expanding its democratic franchise. Over the last two centuries, “representation” grew to embrace former slaves, women, and eighteen-year-olds, while barriers to voting like literacy tests and outright intimidation declined. Except, that is, for one key group, Independents and Third-party voters- half the electorate- who still struggle to gain ballot access and exercise their authentic democratic voice.

Let’s be realistic: most third parties aren't deluding themselves about winning a single-member election, even if they had equal ballot access. “Independents” – that sprawling, 40-percent-strong coalition of diverse policy positions, people, and gripes – are too diffuse to coalesce around a single candidate. So gerrymanderers assume they will reluctantly vote for one of the two main parties. Relegating Independents to mere footnotes in the general election outcome, since they’re also systematically shut out of party primaries, where 9 out of 10 elections are determined.

Keep ReadingShow less