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

Safeguarding Democracy: Addressing Polarization and Institutional Failures

American flag

Nattawat Kaewjirasit/EyeEm/Getty Images

Safeguarding Democracy: Addressing Polarization and Institutional Failures

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

We asked Luke Harris, a Fall Intern with the Fulcrum Fellowship, to share his thoughts on what democracy means to him and his perspective on its current health.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Power of the Purse Belongs to Congress, Not the President
white concrete dome museum

The Power of the Purse Belongs to Congress, Not the President

Money is power. In our system of government, that power was intended to rest squarely with Congress. Yet in recent years, we’ve seen presidents of both parties find ways to sidestep Congress’s “power of the purse” authority, steadily chipping away at their Article I powers and turning appropriations into suggestions rather than binding law.

As someone who served in the House of Representatives — and in its leadership — I saw firsthand how seriously members of both parties took this duty. Regardless of ideology, we understood that Congress’s control of the purse is not just a budgetary function but a core constitutional responsibility.

Keep ReadingShow less
Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate
Three blocks labeled "environmental", "social", and "governance" in front of a globe.
Getty Images, Khanchit Khirisutchalual

Understanding the National Environmental Policy Act Reform Debate

History of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Signed into U.S. law in 1970, NEPA is considered the “Magna Carta” of environmental law. It requires federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of major construction projects such as airports, highways, federal buildings, or projects constructed on federally owned land before construction. To fulfill the NEPA requirements, federal agencies are required to complete a detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any actions with environmental impact. The completed EIS is an extensive written report from federal agencies that includes a summary of the environmental effects of the proposed project, a purpose statement, potential alternatives, and an overview of the affected environment.

Before a final EIS can be published, agencies must publish a draft EIS for a public review and comment period of 45 days. The final EIS must fully address substantive comments from the review period to be considered complete. Major projects with a low likelihood of pronounced environmental impact can bypass the NEPA process if granted a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX). If the project’s impact on the environment is uncertain, agencies are required to prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the need for an EIS.

Keep ReadingShow less
Crowd waving flags
Crowd waving flags
(Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Parallel Twin Lives of Democracy

It is a striking paradox of contemporary American life: The country appears to be bitterly divided, yet at the same time it is in deep internal agreement.

Survey after survey show broad consensus on issues that once split the nation: Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, public smoking bans, marijuana legalization, background checks for gun ownership, even paid parental leave. Many of these were once thought irreconcilable, but today they register supermajority support. Yet at the same time, partisanship has become the most toxic line of fracture in American identity. As political philosopher Robert Talisse has observed, parents who would welcome a child marrying across lines of faith or ethnicity recoil at the prospect of marriage across ideological lines. The left and right increasingly define one another not as fellow citizens who happen to disagree, but as existential threats.

Keep ReadingShow less