admin
The State Department has announced it will end the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) ideology in Foreign Service training and personnel practices. This move, backed by Senator Marco Rubio and pushed by the Biden-era critics turned reformers in the current administration, promises to put merit and mission back at the center of American diplomacy. Good. Diplomats should protect our national interest — not push campus ideology overseas.
What was actually in the DEI package?
From reading lists to pronoun drills
The department’s own materials, as reported, showed a surprising focus on ideological trainings. Instructors were given DEI reading lists that included books and articles tied to Critical Race Theory and other hot-button topics. Foreign-language lessons were adapted to include Black Lives Matter terminology and discussions of systemic racism. There were “inclusivity guides” promoting International Pronoun Day and lists of fanciful non-binary pronouns. New hires spent a day and a half of orientation on DEI; a five-day public diplomacy course devoted a full day to it.
Why ending DEI in the Foreign Service matters
Diplomats are the tip of America’s spear abroad. They need language skills, regional knowledge, and the ability to negotiate with hostile states — not lectures that blame the country they serve. When training shifts from operational diplomacy to ideological catechism, mission effectiveness suffers. Telling our diplomats to focus on “microaffirmations” and “unconscious bias” might be good for corporate HR retreats, but it’s the wrong focus for protecting American lives and interests overseas.
Common sense, not cultural imperialism
There’s also an irony at play: imposing American campus fashions on foreign partners is a bit like trying to sell winter coats at the beach. Applying our latest cultural trends to other nations often comes off as tone-deaf and does more harm than good. Diplomacy should respect local culture while advancing U.S. interests — not lecture other countries using the language of domestic grievance politics. Restoring a merit-based, practical curriculum avoids awkward cultural clashes and makes American diplomats more credible.
Politics, merit, and what comes next
This change is politically popular with conservatives and sensible for anyone who wants a professional Foreign Service. But the real test will be how the State Department implements the reforms. Undoing bad training is easy; building rigorous, practical programs that teach real-world diplomatic skills is harder. If the department sticks to merit, accountability, and mission-focused training, Americans will get diplomats who represent the country — not a political sermon. That should be the end goal, and it’s about time someone had the common sense to demand it.
