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.
