Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_1092812744-scaled

The next coronavirus stimulus bill must support US diplomats overseas

In the upcoming coronavirus stimulus package, these officers and staff members should not only be given recognition for their heroism, but more importantly, they should be rewarded with hazard pay and provided the protective equipment they need.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

Since the COVID-19 crisis began, the State Department has managed to bring home over 40,000 Americans stranded abroad from over 60 countries. While we rightfully breathe a sigh of relief for these repatriated Americans, we are forgetting the tens of thousands of U.S. diplomats and support staff at embassies and consulates around the globe who cannot return home. For them, COVID-19 will be a traumatic and even deadly experience. Indeed, some have already died. Yet, despite the risk, they will continue on after having borne three years of attempted budget cuts and a president who has not hidden his contempt for them. In the upcoming fourth coronavirus stimulus package, these officers and staff members should not only be given recognition for their heroism, but more importantly, should be rewarded with hazard pay and provided the protective equipment they need.

When people think of U.S. diplomats or the State Department, they often think of cocktail parties, pinstripe suits, and intrigue. “Pale, male, and Yale” is an old adage, but the coronavirus has proven that to be very much a thing of the past. State Department officials are going into prisons and hospitals all over the world to check on the welfare of American citizens affected by COVID-19. They are organizing in teams to take tens of thousands of calls at all hours of the night from concerned Americans. Diplomats have rented buses to pick up stranded Americans in remote locations around the globe while negotiating with foreign governments to approve flights when public airports are closed.

They do this work at serious risk to their own lives. When you are a U.S. Embassy staff member, you are not just a diplomat hidden away behind closed doors. You are a social worker, a psychologist, a doctor, a forensics expert, a minister, and often a comforter. During my time at the State Department, face to face contact with foreign government officials and sick Americans were a requirement of the job. Currently, my former colleagues must be in COVID-19 hotspots such as hospitals and airports in order to effectively do their jobs. Already, three State Department staffers have died of COVID-19 and over 154 have tested positive for the virus. There are 3,500 in self-isolation. Many more will likely die.

Instead of the cheers of a grateful nation, these State Department officials receive a lot of criticism. Why did they not warn or rescue me sooner, ask the stranded Americans who, despite this global pandemic progressing for months and despite repeated warnings, still opted to travel internationally? Why didn’t they rescue my constituents first, ask the Republican congressmen who voted repeatedly to cut the State Department security budget?

But not all is criticism, and the most ironic praise comes from the top. “Look at the great job we are doing bringing Americans home,” says the White House that just a few months ago labeled the State Department “radical unelected bureaucrats.” For the better part of three years, the State Department has labored under a president and political appointees who have been seemingly at war with U.S. diplomats. President Trump referred to them as the “Deep State Department” just a few weeks ago. Mike Pompeo, with his eye solely on the 2024 Republican primary, pointedly refused on multiple occasions to defend any of the State Department officials who were repeatedly attacked by President Trump and his allies during the impeachment inquiry. In one of his first acts as president, Trump attempted to cut the State Department budget by 37 percent.

Trump pushed out senior ranking diplomats while handing out ambassadorships and important jobs to campaign donors, political cronies, and members of his golf club.  The current U.S. ambassadors to several prominent countries include a handbag designer, former sports team owners, and a bankruptcy lawyer. Three years of indifference and outright hostility has left a hollowed-out State Department as officers — high ranking and midlevel — left in droves. The intellect, institutional knowledge, and language skills of Marie Yovanovitch and Bill Taylor could surely have been used during this pandemic.

Yet through it all — despite the slights, budget cuts, and mass exodus — the officers who stayed are, and will continue being, consummate professionals. Their willingness to risk their lives must stem from patriotism, because it surely cannot be out of an expectation of commensurate salaries or respect. We cannot undo the harm that has been done to them, but we can ensure that future pandemics and crises are met with a respected, well-funded, and well-staffed State Department. Certainly, we can offer better pay and equipment for the public servants going through this right now.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Photo credit: John Theodor – COMEO / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?
Top image credit: Voodison328 via shutterstock.com

What use is a mine ban treaty if signers at war change their minds?

Global Crises

Earlier this month in Geneva, delegates to the Antipersonnel Mine Ban Treaty’s 22nd Meeting of States Parties confronted the most severe crisis in the convention’s nearly three-decade history. That crisis was driven by an unprecedented convergence of coordinated withdrawals by five European states and Ukraine’s attempt to “suspend” its treaty obligations amid an ongoing armed conflict.

What unfolded was not only a test of the resilience of one of the world’s most successful humanitarian disarmament treaties, but also a critical moment for the broader system of international norms designed to protect civilians during and after war. Against a background of heightened tensions resulting from the war in Ukraine and unusual divisions among the traditional convention champions, the countries involved made decisions that will have long-term implications.

keep readingShow less
The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025
Top image credit: Dabari CGI/Shutterstock

The 8 best foreign policy books of 2025

Media

I spent the last few weeks asking experts about the foreign policy books that stood out in 2025. My goal was to create a wide-ranging list, featuring volumes that shed light on the most important issues facing American policymakers today, from military spending to the war in Gaza and the competition with China. Here are the eight books that made the cut.

keep readingShow less
Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war
Top image credit: People walking on Red square in Moscow in winter. (Oleg Elkov/Shutterstock)

Why Russians haven't risen up to stop the Ukraine war

Europe

After its emergence from the Soviet collapse, the new Russia grappled with the complex issue of developing a national identity that could embrace the radical contradictions of Russia’s past and foster integration with the West while maintaining Russian distinctiveness.

The Ukraine War has significantly changed public attitudes toward this question, and led to a consolidation of most of the Russian population behind a set of national ideas. This has contributed to the resilience that Russia has shown in the war, and helped to frustrate Western hopes that economic pressure and heavy casualties would undermine support for the war and for President Vladimir Putin. To judge by the evidence to date, there is very little hope of these Western goals being achieved in the future.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.