The Financial Times has reached this conclusion, pointing to a large-scale reduction in career diplomats, a rise in the number of vacant embassy posts, and a shift in the principles guiding foreign policy during Donald Trump’s second presidential term.
Personnel Changes Are Transforming the Diplomatic Service
According to the Financial Times, following Donald Trump’s return to the White House, the State Department’s staff has been reduced by more than 3,000 people, which exceeds 20% of the department’s workforce. At the same time, the administration has significantly altered its approach to appointing heads of overseas diplomatic missions.
Of the 101 candidates nominated for ambassadorial posts during Trump’s second presidential term, only nine are career diplomats. As of the end of June, more than half of U.S. embassies remained without confirmed heads, including diplomatic missions in Germany and Saudi Arabia. Most African countries—about 80%—also lack appointed ambassadors.
As the publication notes, this personnel policy marks a departure from a long-standing practice in which most U.S. embassies were headed by career diplomats.
Former diplomats warn of long-term consequences
The harshest assessments of the situation come from former high-ranking U.S. diplomats.
Former U.S. Ambassador to China Nick Burns, who served at the State Department for more than three decades, called the situation “the most devastating crisis in the 102-year history of the U.S. Foreign Service.”
Former CIA Director and former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Bill Burns believes that the current situation is causing even greater damage to the agency than the McCarthyism era of the 1950s, when widespread political purges led to the loss of a significant portion of the professional staff.
According to him, the consequences of these personnel decisions could affect the U.S.’s ability to conduct complex international negotiations. As an example, he cited contacts with Iran, noting that the American side refused to extensively involve relevant specialists, whereas the Iranian delegation relied on well-prepared expert groups.
In Burns’ view, a similar problem could arise if serious negotiations begin to resolve the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The White House Relies on Political Confidants
The Financial Times notes that when resolving international crises, Donald Trump increasingly relies on a small circle of trusted advisors—businesspeople, major donors, and people from his inner circle—rather than on the professional diplomatic corps.
State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott rejected claims that foreign policy decisions are being made without the involvement of experts.
The Trump administration attributes personnel changes to the need to align the department’s activities with the “America First” principle. According to one administration official, the State Department’s role is not to shape foreign policy but to implement the course set by the president.
The Transformation of Diplomacy
The Financial Times article reflects a broader discussion about the transformation of the U.S. foreign policy system. The issue concerns not only the State Department’s personnel policy but also the role of professional diplomacy amid rising international tensions, negotiations on Iran, the conflict in Ukraine, and intensifying U.S.-China rivalry.
For the global economy, the effectiveness of diplomatic institutions remains one of the factors influencing sanctions policy, international trade, the investment climate, and the stability of global markets, the publication notes.
