U.S. Diplomacy Faces Growing Strain as Veteran Foreign Service Officers Exit in Record Numbers

By Emmanuel Bobby

For nearly three decades, Kelly Adams-Smith devoted her professional life to American diplomacy, serving in the U.S. Foreign Service across multiple countries and administrations. Her career, shaped by years of diplomatic service and policy expertise, reflected the kind of institutional experience that many foreign policy experts argue is becoming increasingly scarce inside the State Department.

Adams-Smith entered the Foreign Service alongside her husband after the pair met in graduate school and pursued diplomacy together as both a professional mission and personal commitment.

“We came in together,” Adams-Smith recalled. “We were a tandem couple. We met in graduate school, took the exams together, entered together and served together for 28 years. We also left the Foreign Service on the same day.”

Her long diplomatic career appeared to be building toward a defining achievement when she was nominated in 2024 to serve as ambassador to Moldova, a post that would have allowed her to draw on decades of experience in Europe, advanced economics training, and fluency in several languages, including Russian. For Adams-Smith, the role represented both recognition of years of service and an opportunity to guide American diplomacy at a particularly tense moment in Eastern Europe.

That opportunity never materialized.

In February 2025, the Trump administration withdrew her nomination along with dozens of ambassadorial nominations involving senior career diplomats. With few suitable assignments available that matched her seniority and expertise, Adams-Smith found herself facing an increasingly difficult reality familiar to many longtime diplomats: either move upward within the Foreign Service hierarchy or leave.

Like the military, the Foreign Service operates within a system in which officers are expected to progress through the ranks. Failure to secure promotion or new assignments often leaves retirement as the only practical option. Adams-Smith said she and many colleagues believed they still had years of service left to contribute, particularly in mentoring younger diplomats and shaping policy.

“My job, and the people who left with me, they had more runway,” Adams-Smith said. “They had expected to serve in those mentoring and leadership roles, and so it was devastating. But I also felt that there was not a place for me in the department anymore, and that I really didn’t have a choice.”

Her departure reflects a broader transformation underway at the State Department.

According to the American Foreign Service Association, roughly 2,000 U.S. diplomats have departed the Foreign Service over the last year through layoffs, early retirements, and forced departures. Those leaving include diplomats with decades of institutional memory, expertise in conflict zones, crisis-management experience, and highly specialized language skills developed at taxpayer expense.

Although the State Department declined to release exact figures, officials acknowledged a rise in retirements. With the diplomatic workforce estimated at over 13,000 officers in 2024, critics argue that losing such a large number of experienced personnel weakens America’s diplomatic infrastructure at a moment of intensifying geopolitical instability.

Former diplomats and current officials warn that the consequences may not be immediately visible but could reshape American influence abroad for years.

Elizabeth Horst, who served in major diplomatic assignments across Central Asia, South Asia, and Europe under both Republican and Democratic administrations, said experienced diplomats are essential to protecting Americans overseas and preserving U.S. commercial interests.

“When there’s a crisis, we just don’t have the infrastructure we used to have,” Horst said. “Making sure Americans overseas stay safe, protecting business interests, preserving commerce—these are things people may not notice immediately, but the long-term consequences are real.”

The leadership vacuum has become increasingly visible across the globe.

The ambassadorship to Moldova remains vacant, while more than half of America’s ambassadorial positions worldwide reportedly remain unfilled. Among them are high-priority posts in nations facing security, humanitarian, or political crises, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, where a worsening Ebola outbreak has increased international concern.

Ukraine also lacks a Senate-confirmed ambassador. Veteran diplomat Julie Davis, who has simultaneously managed responsibilities as ambassador to Cyprus while overseeing operations in Kyiv, is expected to step down soon, further widening leadership gaps.

At the same time, critics argue that the administration has increasingly bypassed experienced diplomats in major foreign policy negotiations. Senior Foreign Service officers have reportedly played limited roles in discussions surrounding Russia, Iran, and Middle East diplomacy, even as tensions with allies and adversaries intensify.

More than a dozen current and former senior diplomats described a growing perception that expertise inside the department is being sidelined.

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the department’s approach, arguing that career diplomats and civil service employees remain essential to implementing U.S. foreign policy.

“The department relies on professionalism, experience, and service of both Foreign Service Officers and Civil Service employees to advance American interests around the world,” Pigott said, emphasizing that career personnel serve administrations of both political parties.

Career Diplomats Pushed Toward the Exit

The shift reportedly accelerated during the first year of the Trump administration.

After initially withdrawing ambassadorial nominations for career diplomats, officials later recalled nearly 30 career ambassadors already stationed overseas. Diplomats returning from foreign postings were informed they could seek reassignment but faced limited opportunities.

Under the Foreign Service Act of 1980, returning ambassadors generally have just 90 days to secure another assignment before mandatory retirement procedures begin.

Several former officials described an unusually extensive political vetting process accompanying reassignment applications. According to these accounts, scrutiny extended beyond candidates themselves to include family social media activity and political donations.

One former senior State Department official described the message being communicated to career officers as unmistakable: “There’s no place for you.”

State Department officials disputed parts of the criticism, arguing retirement figures include employees from the now-closed U.S. Agency for International Development, which had worked closely with State Department initiatives. However, diplomatic associations counter that USAID layoffs are not included in the figures cited for Foreign Service departures.

The numbers also reveal a dramatic shift in ambassadorial appointments.

During Trump’s first term, career diplomats filled more than half of ambassadorial nominations. Now, according to diplomatic groups, career Foreign Service officers account for less than 8% of ambassador-level nominees.

Critics argue that the administration increasingly views the diplomatic corps not as an instrument of governance but as an institutional obstacle.

“The administration saw the Foreign Service as a barrier, not a tool,” one former official said. “They believed it was too entrenched and hierarchical to meet their goals.”

Pigott defended the administration’s authority, saying presidents have broad discretion over diplomatic appointments and foreign representation.

A Growing Vacuum in Global U.S. Leadership

The absence of Senate-confirmed ambassadors has become particularly significant during moments of international crisis.

Nearly 100 U.S. embassies are reportedly operating without confirmed ambassadors, more than half of the nation’s diplomatic missions abroad. While temporary leadership arrangements through chargé d’affaires appointments are common, diplomats note that acting officials often wield less authority and enjoy reduced access to top foreign leaders.

Career diplomats emphasize that embassies without ambassadors often lose influence inside host governments because they lack the political backing associated with presidential appointment and Senate confirmation.

“We expect political appointees,” one former official explained. “But when even trusted administration figures aren’t being appointed, embassies become disconnected from decision-making.”

The consequences are particularly evident in the Middle East.

As Washington navigates tensions involving Iran and regional instability, roughly half of U.S. diplomatic posts across the region—including several Persian Gulf countries—remain without formal ambassadors. Qatar and Pakistan, nations central to diplomatic mediation efforts involving Iran, also lack Senate-confirmed envoys.

Former diplomats argue those vacancies complicated evacuation efforts after Iranian retaliatory strikes escalated regional instability earlier this year.

“The State Department is good at evacuations and crisis response,” one former official said. “But without empowered leadership, things became unnecessarily chaotic.”

Pigott rejected criticism of the department’s emergency response, saying officials coordinated charter flights, transportation assistance, and partnerships with airlines to evacuate Americans safely.

In Africa, diplomatic gaps have emerged as governments confront public-health emergencies.

More than three-quarters of African nations reportedly lack U.S. ambassadors even as international agencies respond to an Ebola outbreak classified as a global emergency. Key leadership positions, including representation to the African Union, also remain vacant.

State Department officials said rapid action was taken to support outbreak response efforts and safeguard American health interests.

Changes to Promotions and Performance Rules Spark Concern

Beyond staffing shortages, current and former diplomats say internal policy changes may permanently reshape the Foreign Service.

A new evaluation system reportedly limits how many diplomats may receive top performance ratings, introducing a bell-curve approach designed to tighten accountability and reduce inflated reviews.

Critics acknowledge reforms were necessary but argue the system risks discouraging talented officers and slowing advancement opportunities.

Some diplomats worry that lower ratings could result in stalled careers and mandatory retirement under existing promotion rules.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau defended the reforms, saying accountability must replace inflated assessments that avoid difficult conversations about employee performance.

Meanwhile, a revised performance framework emphasizing “fidelity” as a top characteristic has sparked debate inside diplomatic circles.

Former diplomat Mark Lambert warned that encouraging loyalty-based evaluations risks politicizing a traditionally nonpartisan institution.

“The Foreign Service is like the military—you swear an oath to the Constitution,” Lambert said. “You’re there to give honest analysis and professional judgment regardless of political party.”

State Department officials counter that Secretary of State Marco Rubio welcomes candid professional input but draws a line at actions perceived to undermine elected leadership.

Foreign Policy Experts Missing from High-Level Negotiations

Another major criticism centers on the role—or lack thereof—of career experts in major negotiations.

Former officials say experienced diplomats have largely been excluded from top-level discussions involving conflicts in Ukraine, Iran, Russia, and the Middle East.

Instead, high-profile diplomatic roles have increasingly fallen to presidential advisers and longtime allies, including businessman Steve Witkoff and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Supporters of the administration argue outside voices can bring fresh thinking and unconventional negotiating strategies. Critics, however, say sidelining regional experts risks weakening America’s leverage and producing poorer diplomatic outcomes.

“When the president traveled to Beijing, there wasn’t a China expert on the plane,” Lambert argued. “If you negotiate with Russia or China without specialists, you risk weaker outcomes.”

Former Ambassador John Bass, who served in Afghanistan, Turkey, and Georgia, said the changes reflect a deliberate effort to reduce the role of independent institutional expertise.

“There is an organized effort to strip the professional workforce of experienced leaders,” Bass said. “People trained to solve problems and take initiative are increasingly seen as liabilities rather than assets.”

Pigott rejected claims that foreign policy decisions exclude professional input, insisting career and political officials continue working side by side.

Recruiting a New Generation Amid Institutional Upheaval

The State Department’s restructuring has also extended to recruitment.

Nearly 250 Foreign Service officers were dismissed as part of a departmental reorganization, with critics arguing the layoffs targeted diplomats assigned to Washington regardless of merit or future postings.

Termination notices reportedly stated the decisions were not performance-related and cited a lack of available work.

Meanwhile, changes to the Foreign Service entrance exam and recruitment strategy have generated fresh controversy. Adjustments removing material tied to diversity and inclusion efforts, combined with recruitment videos using historical footage dominated by white male diplomats, fueled accusations that the department is narrowing its image of who belongs in diplomacy.

Critics say the Foreign Service has historically aimed to reflect the diversity of American society across geography, background, education, and ethnicity.

Pigott dismissed accusations of politicization, arguing reforms reverse policies the administration views as harmful while supporting an America First diplomatic agenda.

Why Some Diplomats Still Believe in the Mission

Despite frustration and disappointment, some departing diplomats continue to advocate for public service.

Horst, whose nomination as ambassador to Sri Lanka was withdrawn, attempted to remain within government service by applying to a domestic diplomacy initiative aimed at helping American communities attract foreign investment.

When that program was canceled, she ultimately chose to leave government service and now works in sustainable agriculture in Minnesota.

Still, she warns that the erosion of diplomatic expertise will affect ordinary Americans in ways not immediately visible—from travel safety to business exports and supply-chain reliability.

For Adams-Smith, now a professor of foreign policy at American University, the turbulence only reinforces the need for a strong pipeline of future diplomats.

“We need educated, well-trained, nonpartisan professionals entering the Foreign Service,” she said. “I would hate for young people who dream of public service to walk away from that dream at this moment—because we need them desperately.”