Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

It’s part of the current plans of the R’s to destroy institutions that favor Democrats/progressive ideology/etc. Basically to destroy their “power base.” Dept. Of Education, Foreign Service, Peace Corps, parts of State, etc.

Pretty much this. All those institutions could have been neutral, but decided to essentially become part of team blue. In the short term that probably worked, but now what? People worry about church and state, but party and state have just as many problems.

This is such revisionist history. There are plenty of people who are republicans who went into the Peace Corps or teach. These are NON PARTISAN jobs. Just because MAGA wants to label them as lefitsts doesn't mean they are. The US has been a global leader for a century and Trump is dismantling all of the things that has made this country great and gaslighting his adherents into believing the opposite.

Are you implying there was some sort of Peace Corps to Heritage pipeline? Because there is for liberal orgs. You ever talk to someone at ED, or a FSO off hours? Maybe they aren't liberals by Takoma Park standards...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

It’s part of the current plans of the R’s to destroy institutions that favor Democrats/progressive ideology/etc. Basically to destroy their “power base.” Dept. Of Education, Foreign Service, Peace Corps, parts of State, etc.

Pretty much this. All those institutions could have been neutral, but decided to essentially become part of team blue. In the short term that probably worked, but now what? People worry about church and state, but party and state have just as many problems.

This is such revisionist history. There are plenty of people who are republicans who went into the Peace Corps or teach. These are NON PARTISAN jobs. Just because MAGA wants to label them as lefitsts doesn't mean they are. The US has been a global leader for a century and Trump is dismantling all of the things that has made this country great and gaslighting his adherents into believing the opposite.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

It’s part of the current plans of the R’s to destroy institutions that favor Democrats/progressive ideology/etc. Basically to destroy their “power base.” Dept. Of Education, Foreign Service, Peace Corps, parts of State, etc.

Pretty much this. All those institutions could have been neutral, but decided to essentially become part of team blue. In the short term that probably worked, but now what? People worry about church and state, but party and state have just as many problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok folks, let’s rope this back in. What can we expect from Rubio and Donald in the days ahead at State?

Rubio is denying this is happening. We will see.

https://www.govexec.com/management/2025/04/rubio-denies-trump-will-politicize-foreign-service-and-slash-embassies/404703/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

It’s part of the current plans of the R’s to destroy institutions that favor Democrats/progressive ideology/etc. Basically to destroy their “power base.” Dept. Of Education, Foreign Service, Peace Corps, parts of State, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Because smart competent people who want to walk the walk on public service strongly trend liberal. So, you need to go a couple tiers down to get a conservative cohort.

Conservatives don’t like to do things for others. I mean sure they go to church for the performative BS so they can go to heaven. But peace corp is too much for them.

Anonymous wrote:Ok folks, let’s rope this back in. What can we expect from Rubio and Donald in the days ahead at State?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

So you needed to destroy the foreign service because you disagree with a few actions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC who just graduated college is supposed to join the Peace Corps this fall. I'm somewhat nervous about that because I'm wondering how much support she's going to receive from our government - especially if there's an emergency.

Anyone care to comment?

They rarely take on a new grad and prefer applicants with work experience. Interesting.

Peace Corps is almost entirely new grads and has been for decades. Like 80% of all volunteers just graduated from college and immediately went into the peace corps.

cite, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Because smart competent people who want to walk the walk on public service strongly trend liberal. So, you need to go a couple tiers down to get a conservative cohort.

Anonymous wrote:So who is going to fund pride parades and trans days of visibility in other countries now if all this comes to pass?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DC who just graduated college is supposed to join the Peace Corps this fall. I'm somewhat nervous about that because I'm wondering how much support she's going to receive from our government - especially if there's an emergency.

Anyone care to comment?

They rarely take on a new grad and prefer applicants with work experience. Interesting.

Peace Corps is almost entirely new grads and has been for decades. Like 80% of all volunteers just graduated from college and immediately went into the peace corps.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Getting rid of the exam is wild. The best people.

There have long been complaints about the exam. A republican-tied career ambassador told me that he found it impossible to get his best people through it and they were limited to other functions. In general, the selection process does seem to favor bland personalities.

Why would an ambassador’s best people suddenly be taking the foreign service exam?

And maybe there’s a reason why the adjective “diplomatic” is not synonymous with flamboyant, charismatic, etc?

Not everyone in the State Department is in the foreign service. There are even ambassadors, such as this one, that are part of the career service.

His beef was more with the oral portion than the written part. He said it favored milquetoast personalities who are mostly comfortable asking everyone else at the table to share their opinion. He's right that we do need to be at least a *little* assertive to get anything done. I'd be fired if I refused to take a position on anything.

The "assertiveness" is supposed to come from the politically appointed Ambassadors and the central State Department leadership. The FSO's carry out the agenda, which is usually related to trade mission and administrative functions that should be non-political.

You're dead wrong. We cannot have only one person per country effectuating America's goals. And you're also wrong that government workers make no policy decisions, in fact, its a huge aspect of their roles at State and everywhere else. Policy isnt considered partisan within the government.

Please explain again why the bar to become an FSO should be lowered.

Because smart competent people who want to walk the walk on public service strongly trend liberal. So, you need to go a couple tiers down to get a conservative cohort.

Right wingers do mission trips.