In the latest “America First” move by the Trump administration, the State Department issued an abrupt recall of nearly 30 career diplomats in mid-December. This action leaves the United States with approximately 80 vacant ambassadorships worldwide out of 195 available. Despite the ambassadors’ survival of a previous purge of Biden-era appointees, they were informed their tenures would end come January for not being “fully supportive” of President Donald Trump’s policies.
This recall represents a much larger shift in American foreign policy. The days of diplomatic continuity are long gone; America is instead shifting towards a transactional, loyalty-driven approach better aligned with the implementation of President Trump’s “America First” agenda. Although it has been framed as a strategy to prioritize American interests, the shift risks weakening the United States’ influence abroad.
It has long been typical for an incoming president to replace prior political appointees with their own, but the removal of career diplomats and ambassadors is highly unusual. Generally, incoming presidents allow career diplomats to remain in ambassadorial positions to ensure the continuance of American relations with foreign leaders.
This allows for continuity across administrations, strengthens credibility abroad, and reduces the chance of politicized decision-making in complex international negotiations and security matters. Continuity brings stability in trade negotiations, military coordination, and crisis response. President Trump, however, reversed this long-standing tradition in favor of diplomats more in line with his foreign policy goals.
Worryingly, this mirrors patterns seen in the previous administration, as Biden left many ambassadorships vacant until deep in his term. Removing ambassadors at this scale has left many embassies run by a chargé d’affaires, a diplomatic rank directly below an ambassador that has historically been reserved for interim leadership. Although capable, leaving a chargé d’affaires as the head of an embassy may be interpreted as a country diminishing its diplomatic priority in said embassy.
America First’s Impact
The lack of ambassadors abroad is indicative of a shift in the United States geopolitical positioning: the America First agenda. President Trump has declined to provide clear guidance on what America First means, instead choosing to alter it to suit his foreign policy goals.
The policy attempts to implement a strong executive-centered foreign policy while reducing multilateral cooperation. Further, it claims to reduce institutional reliance on the United States and distribute responsibility among member states. This shifts the United States’ focus from developing allies towards emphasizing our own national sovereignty above all else.
At face value, America First sounds clear, yet the vague definition of America First establishes a void where there should be a foreign policy. It attempts to boil down American foreign policy into transactional affairs with a clear winner and loser. Foreign policy is not this simple. Trump’s refusal to establish his goals outside of being “America First” risks placing the United States in geopolitical limbo, not in a continued position of power.
If the goal of America First is the preservation of American and global peace, then diplomatic presence should be considered foundational, not optional. President Trump’s title of the “Peace President” would imply this goal. His claim to end eight wars since assuming office is indicative of his administration’s values and should be continued through the installation of ambassadors throughout the world.
Peace is secured not through rhetoric and show, but through sustained global engagement. Ambassadors are a cornerstone of global politics; without their presence, there are no personal or official relationships, and extreme difficulty in forming them. If our president wishes to maintain the vast capability of the State Department and U.S. foreign policy, then career diplomats should be the priority.
Career diplomats have a unique ability to quickly build relationships within the country where they are stationed. Their linguistic expertise, regional knowledge, and adaptability make them valuable tools in complex geopolitical situations. Despite their potential to disagree politically, their institutional expertise should be valued far above their loyalty to the current administration.
Conversely, if our president is uncertain of the American role in the geopolitical order, then the presence of Ambassadors is increasingly important. Throughout the isolationist period following WWI, there was a sustained commitment to maintaining diplomatic relationships; career diplomats were continually appointed as figureheads of American governance, not as political pawns.
If there is mixed messaging in American foreign policy, the American position in the world order is drawn into question. Without ambassadors serving in potential allied states, they could seek alternative powers to expand influence.
China Does Not Have an Ambassador Problem
Compared to the 80 ambassadorial and organizational vacancies the United States currently maintains abroad, China has 20. Not only do the Chinese have 20 vacancies, but they regularly fill these positions with career diplomats promoted internally through their foreign ministry.
Their commitment to maintaining a prominent position in foreign affairs is directly correlated with their Belt and Road Initiative. A global infrastructure and investment program designed to fund infrastructure projects throughout the world, create interdependent states, and extend Chinese political influence.
It is through this system that China has been criticized for developing financially dependent states. By loaning funds to develop infrastructure in less-developed countries in the global south, they improve their social image and deepen international Chinese dependence, resulting in states that are inclined to turn to China in times of need.
This elevates Chinese interests globally and places America further at odds with the rest of the world. Without sustained commitment to investment abroad, the American image may diminish in credibility. Despite the cultivation of debt-dependence, the Chinese are careful to develop their interpersonal relationships as well.
If the United States does not care enough to appoint ambassadors to its embassies abroad, then foreign nations will be hesitant to work as closely with them. China has continually demonstrated its interest and desire to work with developing nations. Simply by filling ambassadorial positions, they show that they care about their relationships, gaining invaluable soft power to be used when needed.
Soft power is a valuable tool in international relations. A term coined by Joseph Nye, it emphasizes “a country’s ability to influence others without resorting to coercive pressure.” Although historically overlooked, it provides the basis for many international relationships.
Ambassadors are key to exercising soft power. As the facilitators of economic and cultural exchanges, they represent American interests abroad and encourage countries to engage with American society. Their issuance of visas, exchange programs, and business coordination is invaluable to American interests abroad.
Fulbright Scholars, Hollywood movies, and Coca-Cola, among other examples, have furthered American interests abroad for decades. Behemoths of Chinese industry: TikTok (ByteDance), Tencent, and massive industrial firms are investing worldwide and show no signs of stopping.
The Future Implications
The ambassador problem goes further than ambassadorial presence in foreign countries; instead, it could be a component in broader shifts in global power distribution. China is catching up, and its continued investment abroad is slowly elevating the nation to a position equal to the United States in global prominence.
Ambassadors broker trade deals, assist with military responses, and develop responses to crises. Without American ambassadors, Chinese interests are represented disproportionately.
If this is to be a long-term stance, the United States should begin reconsidering how we view ourselves on the global stage. If we continue to place America First, we risk losing valuable relationships abroad. The European Union has already begun to shift away from American investment, and the global economy is gradually moving away from American dominance. This must be considered when skilled ambassadors are recalled from their posts and replaced with party loyalists.
It is not anti-American to maintain ambassadors in embassies and consulates, nor is it placing America second to invest in nations abroad. It is instead the opposite. If there are ambassadors abroad, then American economic and political interests are being represented, and Chinese influence is being held at bay.
If the Trump Administration wishes to continue to place America First abroad, then we must develop relationships, not seek to limit them. Ambassadors are the key to diplomacy, and without their presence, there can be no hope for an American First foreign policy.
