What Is This Foreign Service How

My colleague Charles Ray, commenting on the dire condition of the U.S. Foreign Service reflected in the December 3 2025 report by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), rightly emphasized that the current hostile Administration’s savaging of the Service is a self-inflicted wound, damaging the United States.

But what is this Foreign Service? How does it benefit the American people?

The Foreign Service is America’s diplomatic corps, a relatively small group of U.S. government experts assigned to understand the world’s complexity; the make-up and interests of the other 194 countries with which we share the planet; and U.S. international goals and core values. In their job description is a duty also to understand how to influence those countries to promote the American people’s collective interests. These dedicated public servants take an oath to the Constitution. They are stationed in Embassies and other diplomatic posts around the world. Led by Ambassadors, who are credentialed as personal representatives of the President, Foreign Service Officers (FSOs) work under this umbrella. Other countries recognize that FSOs – who, like military officers, hold personal commissions signed by the President – speak officially for the United States.

But how do FSOs know what to say? The Foreign Service’s sworn duty is to implement to the maximum extent possible foreign policy decided by the President and Administration in power, whether Republican or Democrat. There is no so-called “Deep State” in the Foreign Service, allegedly looking out only for itself or in any way entitled to countermand or refuse policy direction. For a President, or his political appointees, to demand, as is now the case, written evaluations of FSOs’ “loyalty” is not only redundant, insulting, and highly demoralizing, but also damaging to the country’s ability to carry out its policies.

Foreign Service Officers, to be any good, must be temperamentally and intellectually able to deal with a high degree of ambiguity in their professional surroundings. That is, professional representatives of other countries, often just as skilled, often see the world, international issues, their own societies, and their countries’ political needs differently than we do. Our people need to be able to understand and work with these differences, often with insufficient information, which frequently entails persuading people to divulge more than they might otherwise be comfortable doing. U.S. officials can choose to force counterparts to acquiesce to U.S. wishes (a preferred foreign policy technique of the Trump Presidency), but securing willing agreement, because the foreigner has been persuaded that what we want is also actually in his or her own interest, is a much better strategy and likely to build a lasting degree of mutual trust. .

Indeed, one often hears of diplomats seeking to establish “trust” between countries. “Trust” doesn’t necessarily mean aligning divergent goals, or establishing friendship. It means establishing a basis, even – or especially – with adversaries, whereby each side can grasp the exact meaning of what it hears. If a counterpart brushes off an American request, for example, can that person be trusted to mean exactly what he or she says? Is such a refusal a bargaining ploy, only temporarily significant, an absolute red line that cannot be crossed, or a lie? American diplomats need to be able to tell the difference, doing so in foreign languages that they have spent years learning, and operating in other cultures, far from home.

One function of FSO’s with which many Americans are likely more familiar is the provision of consular services. Americans traveling abroad are subject to local laws, whether they make sense, are familiar, or offer what we would recognize as due process. Being accused abroad of falling afoul of an unfamiliar law, for instance, perhaps incurring fines or arrest, is a frightening experience. To be able to rely on a local American in such circumstances, who speaks the language and has official standing to know his or her way around the local police and justice system – especially important if the rule of law is lax in the first place – is a lifeline. While not entitled to spring the visiting American from jail, a consular officer can ensure that that person is not subjected to any unfair treatment, the case is handled as professionally as local conditions permit, and if the traveler is unfortunate enough to have fallen into the hands of a corrupt or authoritarian judicial system, that the matter is not somehow mishandled or “forgotten” by local authorities.

FSO’s typically spend half their careers or more living and working outside the U.S. Some foreign postings, usually two or three years each, can be quite pleasant. But others are in countries that are dangerous, unhealthy, where just managing daily life is difficult, securing proper education for one’s children is impossible, where families cannot accompany the FSO in the first place, or all of the above. All FSO recruits are made aware of these drawbacks and accept them as occupational hazards, and they know that career patterns are unpredictable, and often the next posting might not be what one wanted. More and more posts have become characterized by these hazards, and although there is probably no exact count, a large percentage of FSO’s have been suddenly evacuated from their overseas locations at least once in their careers because of war or other dangers. Many countries have endemic disease risks, with underdeveloped public health systems. Not uncommonly, the standard procedure is if aspirin or antibiotics can’t fix a problem, one has to leave the country to seek care.

Some Americans find such a lifestyle fascinating. Many others, however, would never choose to live with such uncertainty or frequent uprooting. The common thread in the Foreign Service, however, is a deep-seated motivation to serve one’s country. It is the deliberate bashing away by the Administration at this pool of dedicated Americans on which the AFSA report is focused and is so destructive to America’s ability to avoid conflict and war, promote democratic values and play a useful role in the world in a way we can all be proud.

Tom Wolfson is a former senior U.S. diplomat who has lived and worked in six foreign countries, occasionally multiple times. His work representing the U.S. has included assignments at the United Nations, in the U.S. Congress, and with an international democracy-building organization. He is a member of The Steady State.

Founded in 2016, The Steady State is a nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization of more than 360 former senior national security professionals. Our membership includes former officials from the CIA, FBI, Department of State, Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security. Drawing on deep expertise across national security disciplines, including intelligence, diplomacy, military affairs, and law, we advocate for constitutional democracy, the rule of law, and the preservation of America’s national security institutions.