The State Department and the Trump Administration

 The American Conservative published on 22 July 2026 a commentary titled "The Fight Inside Trump's State Department Is About Power--Not Expertise" by Phillip Linderman.

The author argues that the Trump administration is trying to salvage the US Foreign Service from the "globalist and woke values" that dominate professional diplomatic services.  But the "old guard" in the State Department is stymieing this effort in the belief that the situation in the Department will return to normal after Trump leaves office.

For decades, the State Department's machinery has reflexively favored the globalist or internationalist Foreign Service officer over the American First officer.  Now an administration is trying to rebalance the institution.   

The old guard understands that accepting Trump's approach would mean surrendering much of its power to shape foreign policy.  That is why its members defended "the corrupt and dysfunctional USAID."  He concludes: "This is a fight about Washington power, not diplomatic expertise."

Comment:  There is a grain of truth to the author's core argument.  Foreign Service officers tend to be globalist and internationalist in their approach to foreign affairs.  That has also been the approach of all post-World War II administrations with the exception of the first Trump administration.  Foreign Service officers, especially at the senior level, also want to have an impact on the foreign policy decision making process and not meekly parrot every decision that comes from on high.  

This is where his analysis falls apart.  There is a role for offering a slightly different approach or even a contrary point of view backed up by sound knowledge and analysis.  If it is not accepted, then obviously the decision from "on high" must be accepted.  In the vast majority of cases in my experience, this has been the response from the Foreign Service.  If significant differences remained, the Foreign Service officer was moved to a different position or resigned.  

A Foreign Service officer has every right to disagree, for example, with the author's definition of USAID as "corrupt and dysfunctional" because he is flat-out wrong and the administration erred in dismantling the organization.  But the Trump administration made the decision to shut USAID down, and it is up to the Foreign Service to implement the new policy on foreign assistance.  I suspect the overwhelming majority of Foreign Service officers today are doing just that.

The author argues that the "public record" suggests senior Foreign Service officers' reluctance to implement the president's decisions fully and faithfully is widespread.  The "public record" he cites is a flawed analysis titled "Why Does Trump Hate the State Department" published by The American Conservative on July 20 and reposted below on July 21.  

Trump Administration's National Security Strategy and Africa

 The Foreign Policy Research Institute published on 6 January 2026 an analysis titled "The Africa Blind Spot: The US National Security Strategy and the Risks of Retreat" by Christopher Faulkner and Raphael Parens.  

The Trump Administration's National Security Strategy document represents a significant shift in how the United States will approach Africa in the near term.  It reflects a preference for transactionalism, driven by the president's pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize.  

The limited discussion devoted to Africa (about a half a page) does not inherently reflect a lack of interest in the continent.  Instead, it demonstrates that the administration's interest in Africa will be constrained, selective, and dependent on what Africa can offer in an increasingly competitive world.  This effectively constitutes strategic disengagement.

The authors conclude that navigating between selective engagement and strategic retreat will not likely reduce the pressures that will draw the United States to the continent.  Instead, it risks deferring engagement, ensuring that future interventions, when they become unavoidable, are costlier and less effective.  

A Smarter "America First" Policy for Africa

 Foreign Policy published on 19 May 2025 a commentary titled "The 'America First' Case for U.S. Engagement in Africa" by Curtis Bell and Christopher Faulkner, both at the U.S. Naval War College.

Instead of retreating from Africa, the Trump administration should embrace a smarter form of transactionalism.  The authors argue that US policy toward Africa should refocus around four strategic priorities: supporting resilient and self-sufficient regional organizations; curbing threats to US security at their source; fostering African support for US positions in international institutions; and co-developing a positive economic vision for the continent that promotes economic development and integration while resisting extractive and abusive economic practices of rival global powers.

An America First Deal with the Houthis

 The Atlantic posted on 6 May 2025 a commentary titled "An America First Deal with the Houthis."

The US has extracted itself from the conflict with the Houthis but not ended it.  The Houthis say they will continue to strike Israel, and it is not clear what their policy is concerning non-US and UK-flagged ships.  

Marco Rubio Shuts Down State Department's Soft Power Programs

 MSNBC posted on 23 April 2025 a commentary titled "Marco Rubio Is Taking a Chainsaw to America's Soft Power" by Zeeshan Aleem.  

As Secretary of State Marco Rubio implements the Trump administration's America First policy, he is eliminating traditional soft power programs in the State Department for promoting human rights, democracy, and the empowerment of women.  The Trump administration is signaling that it increasingly intends to use the threat of force instead of diplomacy to achieve its foreign policy goals.  

Trump Africa Legacy and Possible Biden Changes

 The Conversation posted on 25 November 2020 a commentary titled "Trump's Legacy in Africa and What to Expect from Biden" by Francis Owusu, Iowa State University, and Padraig Carmody and Ricardo Reboredo, both at Trinity College Dublin.  

The authors review what the Trump administration has done in Africa and try to predict what will be retained and what will change in the Biden administration. 

China Filling Soft Power Void Left by US

The Conversation published on 8 January 2018 a commentary titled "China Steps into Soft Power Vacuum as the US Retreats under Trump" by Asit K. Biswas and Cecilia Tortajada, both with the National University of Singapore.

The authors argue that China is stepping into the global soft power vacuum created by the Trump administration, which is emphasizing America first. They conclude that American soft power is in retreat in Africa and elsewhere.

How Donald Trump Could Give China a Real Boost in Africa

The China Africa Project did a half hour podcast on 7 January 2017 titled "How Donald Trump Could Give China a Real Boost in Africa" with Janet Eom, research manager at the China Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

The podcast with Eric Olander and Cobus van Staden covered a range of issues that included trade, Power Africa, Africa Growth and Opportunity Act, human rights, and LGBT issues.