POLITICSAugust 14, 2026

The State Department as an instrument of American power

James Jay Carafano

Reading time: 8 min

Whoever wins the next presidential election will inherit a U.S. State Department that has been rebuilt for global competition.

Revamping the American Department of State (the equivalent of the foreign ministry in many countries) is among the most consequential restructuring efforts of President Donald Trump’s second administration. The debate over his approach reflects the deep and widening partisan divide in Washington, obscuring a more important issue: what the transformation means over the long term for diplomacy as an instrument of national power. Future American presidents, whether Democratic or Republican, will likely find a State Department better prepared to execute their foreign policy and more capable of working in an integrated manner with other elements of power, including economic institutions and the military.

Center of the storm

The president’s effort to remake foreign policy has proven widely controversial inside Washington and a subject of concern in some foreign capitals. An NPR report in May 2026 documented a wave of departures from the United States Foreign Service and attributed them in part to what it called a “newly aggressive politicization” of American foreign policy. John Dinkelman, a former career diplomat who heads the American Foreign Service Association, put the contraction of the foreign service at 20 percent or more.

Eighteen months into the president’s term, 107 of 195 ambassadorial posts are unfilled, a vacancy rate of nearly 55 percent, against roughly 22 percent at this point in Mr. Trump’s first term. According to critics of the administration, the combination of an exodus of professionals, undermanned embassies and political interference undermines the effectiveness of American diplomacy.

At the same time, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is widely regarded as one of the most powerful and effective cabinet officials in the administration. Defenders of the overhaul argue that a transformation was necessary to counter institutional resistance by a workforce they regard as overwhelmingly entrenched and partisan – one unwilling to support the president’s policy agenda and ill-suited to addressing the challenges of modern diplomacy, on issues like irregular migration, energy and China’s global influence. The pressure for change goes deeper than partisan bickering.

Present at the creation

The State Department has never been a static institution. Profound geopolitical transformation has always been the catalyst for major reform.

Postwar

Swelled by new personnel, new missions and the expansion of American interests during and after World War II, the department turned from a sleepy instrument of traditional diplomacy into a vibrant arm of national might, extending American influence through foreign aid, multilateral diplomacy, trade and information operations. The Cold War gave it a global mission to match U.S. global interests and responsibilities. Suffused with a new generation of leadership including wartime diplomats, military veterans and a generation of Americans drawn to public service, the department was remade. Dean Acheson, secretary of state under Harry Truman, titled his memoir of those years, “Present at the Creation.”

Post-Cold War

The collapse of the Soviet Union signaled a second great transformation as Americans grappled with how to exercise influence in a new era. During the Cold War, America’s two political parties were geographically and ideologically more diverse. In the 1990s, this began to change. The Republican Party grew more consistently conservative, and the Democratic Party more liberal. This had a profound impact on the State Department.

Conservatives became skeptical of government institutions and multinational and international governmental organizations. Liberals embraced administrative government and came to dominate the rank and file of many institutions, including the State Department. As a result, in modern times the political affiliation of most department employees is overwhelmingly Democratic.

Another important shift was the rise of the National Security Council staff and the national security advisor as an independent and influential policy arm in government, often in competition with the secretaries of defense and state for influence on foreign and national security policy. The global information revolution exacerbated the challenge, forcing a dramatic reshuffling of how diplomacy was conducted. Embassies, for example, played a much less critical role in advising and policy-making as world leaders had virtual global access to information and each other.

In practice there were increasingly two Departments of State: the secretary and his immediate office, competing for authority in Washington and with foreign leaders; and the institutional department, with its own entrenched views of national interests and priorities. There was always closer alignment and less friction between the institution and the secretary under Democratic administrations.

×

Facts & figures

Political appointees as U.S. ambassadors

Diplomatic power during the post-Cold War era was also more diffused. The information and foreign aid arms were spun off; the role of non-governmental and international organizations greatly expanded. Tension grew between the view that foreign policy should strictly adhere to national interests and the belief that institutions should be more independent and objective to serve the general good. Increasing partisanship in the institution and the lack of effective oversight often resulted in activities and priorities more tightly aligned with liberal political objectives. The Trump administration argues that some of these activities led to significant fraud, waste and abuse of government funding and activities, though the scale of the problem and the legality of the remedy are both being contested in Congress and the courts.

In an increasingly competitive and complex post-Cold War world, issues of foreign policy, national security and economic security became more complex. There were more calls for better interagency or whole-of-government operations with more sophisticated integration of the elements of national influence beyond coordination in the National Security Council. While every administration acknowledged the need for intergovernmental operations, none successfully established significant or enduring institutional reforms.

Post-unipolar

Much of the disruption in modern diplomacy is attributed to Mr. Trump and his team. The deeper driver is the changing demand of global competition, particularly the intense pressure from China and the increasing use of political, economic and hybrid warfare from many corners. Growing demand to synchronize and integrate the application of national power, particularly on matters of national and economic security, also plays a role.

The scope of diplomacy is changing, with several issues topping the agenda – such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence and manufacturing in orbit – that were science fiction three decades ago. While Mr. Trump is often described by both critics and supporters as waging war on the “deep state,” that description is incomplete. The more consequential project is a revolution in diplomatic affairs to meet modern needs.

By moving back to a model of “one State Department,” the agencies of the future will be more effective at wielding American national power.

Structural reform

If the restructuring is driven as much by necessity as by the pursuit of political control, much of it will survive changes of administration. Here are the most likely areas of reform to endure.

Reintegration of information and foreign assistance: Global competition will force aid and information to serve as more targeted instruments of policy rather than ends in themselves, as during the Cold War.

Focus on national policies in multinational and international institutions: In particular, China’s effort to capture leadership in international institutions, as well as efforts to weaponize organizations (such as the UN Human Rights Council as a venue for campaigns against Israel) will make it harder for the U.S. to justify supporting organizations on the grounds of the general good.

Oversight and demand for transparency: Voters will want both parties to address systematic past abuses and will insist that government be a better steward of tax dollars.

Policies on ambassadorial appointments: Missions do not require a politically appointed ambassador to function; a chargé d’affaires runs them. President Trump’s strategy on nominations reflects a growing trend: Rather than feeling an obligation to fill ambassadorial posts as a matter of course, he has treated ambassadorships as instruments of policy. It is a model that will become modern custom. Ensuring a balance between political and career appointments will be seen as less important in future administrations.

Cabinet-run government: Rather than relying on the National Security Council or institutional and interagency reforms, expect successors to follow the Trump model – employing his team of cabinet officials as the drivers of action and integrated policies.

Contact us today for tailored geopolitical insights and industry-specific advisory services.

Sign up for our newsletter

Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.

Email*

Subscribe

Agreement GDPR

We may inform you about events and products by e-mail or other electronic means.

Information about what personal data we collect about you and how we process it (including information about how we personalize our website for you and deliver content tailored to you) can be found in our privacy policy.