Follow us on social

google cta
State-dept-shutterstock_196805378-scaled

US foreign policy making needs to ‘look like America’

U.S. foreign policy making has been dominated by white men. While that's starting to change, more needs to be done.

Analysis | Washington Politics
google cta
google cta

“Make the government look like America” has been a slogan used by presidential candidates for many years. And rightly so. But where it does not sufficiently apply is in U.S. foreign policy. Does that matter? In terms of the application of power and serving basic security interests, probably not. But in promoting American diplomacy and the country’s values and reputation, it matters a great deal. The United States cannot continue arguing (as Gov. John Winthrop did, drawing on Matthew 5:14) that it should be “as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us,”  if what “people” see is systemic indifference to people left out.

Notably, along with the recent Black Lives Matter mass demonstrations, evidence has come tumbling out that there are very few people of color involved in the making and carrying out of U.S. foreign policy, as well as in analysis of it in the non-governmental sector. The most striking statistic is that, of the United States’ 189 ambassadors, only 3 career officers are Black (and 4 are of Hispanic heritage).  The representation of minorities still falls short in the other ranks in the State Department. 

By contrast, the military side of the Pentagon has a higher percentage of Black officers: this derives in part from the fact that more than 30 percent of serving men and women are African-American or other minorities.

It is true that two national security advisers have been Black women, Condoleezza Rice and Susan Rice, and the former went on to become secretary of state while the latter had previously been U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

There has also been one Black male secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had been President Reagan’s national security adviser. He came out of the military and he very likely could have become president of the United States. But beyond the evident qualities of these people, their appointments are the exceptions.

The State Department is promising to clean up its act, by creating a “departmentwide task force” to provide input for plans “to facilitate a determined, coordinated approach to recruiting and retaining diverse talent.” That is long overdue, but its actions don’t match the rhetoric as State Department leadership recently ordered the U.S. Embassy in Seoul to take down a “Black Lives Matter” banner.

This overdue policy should not just apply to Foreign Service Officers, the public face of the Department, but also to its large number of civil servants, where there is a higher percentage of people of color, yet without the authority, responsibilities, prestige, and in many cases, job security of FSOs.

But it’s not just a State Department problem. Lack of diversity extends throughout the so-called foreign policy establishment — which for decades has been dominated by white men. One can attend meetings and conferences on foreign policy in Washington, New York, and Cambridge, and expect to see mostly all-white audiences and a rare non-white presenter. The same is true of those who are published in the leading journals on foreign policy.

During the last three decades, the ranks of women in foreign policy have increased, both in government jobs and in universities and think tanks. But this has not been the case for people of color, who are, with some exceptions, rarely seen in both leadership and working level positions at universities and research institutions.

There are two possible explanations for this pattern. The first is that, given the deep structural inequalities in American society itself, many people of color may be more likely to focus their careers working at home to address these issues, in politics, religious communities, and non-governmental organizations. This is where immediate change must come in American society, its institutions and practices.

It’s also possible that African and Hispanic Americans don’t see financial and career-advancing possibilities in the foreign policy space. Far more useful and lucrative careers are in law, medicine, or other jobs that follow from acquiring an MBA. 

But at the same time, efforts to bring more people of color and other minorities into the foreign policy space have been ongoing for some time.

That’s at least a start, but burgeoning the ranks of U.S. foreign policy circles with more people of color will take time, and it will take larger and more sustained efforts than those already underway. It’s not just a matter of involving some of the “best of the best” Americans who have been largely left out of foreign policy, but of demonstrating to the world that its practitioners, in and out of government, come from all parts of society and, indeed, “look like America.”


Photo credit: Mark Van Scyoc / Shutterstock.com
google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
Trump Central Asia
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) attend a dinner with the leaders of the C5+1Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Central Asia doesn't need another great game

Asia-Pacific

The November 6 summit between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. represents a significant moment in U.S.-Central Asia relations (C5+1). It was the first time a U.S. president hosted the C5+1 group in the White House, marking a turning point for U.S. relations with Central Asia.

The summit signaled a clear shift toward economic engagement. Uzbekistan pledged $35 billion in U.S. investments over three years (potentially $100 billion over a decade) and Kazakhstan signed $17 billion in bilateral agreements and agreed to cooperate with the U.S. on critical minerals. Most controversially, Kazakhstan became the first country in Trump's second term to join the Abraham Accords.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Golden Dome, mission impossible

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Xi Jinping
Top image credit: Photo agency and Lev Radin via shutterstock.com

Why Texas should invite Xi Jinping to a rodeo

Asia-Pacific

Last year, Texas banned professional contact by state employees (including university professors) with mainland China, to “harden” itself against the influence of the Communist Party of China – an entity that has governed the country since 1949, and whose then-leader, Deng Xiaoping, attended a Texas rodeo in 1979.

Defending the policy, the new provost of the University of Texas, my colleague Will Inboden, writes in National Affairs that “the US government estimates that the CPC has purloined up to $600 billion worth of American technology each year – some of it from American companies but much of it from American universities.” US GDP is currently around $30 trillion, so $600 billion would represent 2% of that sum, or roughly 70% of the US defense budget ($880 billion). It also amounts to about one-third of all spending ($1.8 trillion) by all US colleges and universities, on all subjects and activities, every year. Make that 30 cents of every tuition dollar and a third of every federal research grant.

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.