In 2026, American Diplomacy marks 30 years since its founding. It continues in a challenging environment to acquaint its readers with how diplomatic service promotes US interests. A year into President Trump’s second term, his assault on America’s professional diplomatic service continues. On December 22, according to published reports, the Trump administration removed another 30 professional American diplomats from their ambassadorial posts. Figures compiled by the American Foreign Service Association, combined with lists of the ambassadorial posts newly vacated, indicate that of the 192 ambassadorial posts available, 108 remain vacant. Of the 67 ambassadorial nominees submitted to the Senate since Trump took office, a mere four have been career diplomats. Another 28 career diplomats, holdovers from prior administrations, remain at their posts for now, but will presumably be called back when the administration gets around to it. Assuming that the current career/political appointee ratio continues, if the 192 ambassadorial positions are eventually filled, only 12 of the ambassadors will be diplomatic professionals. In past administrations, that figure would have averaged about 134.
It is worth recalling that even as the current administration decimates its professional diplomatic service it continues to depend upon it. The vast majority, perhaps all, of the 192 missions that should have ambassadors are being run by less senior Foreign Service Officers, mostly deputy chiefs of mission who are now doing extended duty as charges d’affaires. Some, at the larger posts, have extensive diplomatic experience; others, at smaller posts, may have no prior experience operating at this level. All of them will have difficulty meeting with and establishing the kinds of relationships at the senior level that are customary for ambassadors. This will impact the quality of information that they are able to send back to Washington.
Several of the Commentary articles in this issue are critical of one or more aspects of this administration’s foreign policy. Thomas E. McNamara sees US actions in Venezuela as both a mistake and a violation of traditional policies in the region. Dick Virden more broadly criticizes the administration’s violation of its own principles. And Mathew Frederick characterizes US policy as “performative realism”, a militarized perversion of classical realism that emphasizes form over content, action over reflection, and slogans over analysis. Each of the other four articles illustrates aspects of how diplomatic professionals have served US interests with creativity and courage.