Judging by the shockingly small budget request for the State Department for the next fiscal year, President Trump does not seem to believe in diplomacy. In a future essay, I will write about the illogical and imprudent cuts to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has now been merged with the Department of State. These cuts account for the bulk of decreases in spending for the State Department (for thoughtful pieces on the value of USAID, see Samantha Power’s article here and Atul Gawande’s conversation with David Remnick here.) However, in this essay, I want to focus on the work that diplomats do to advance American national interests—the kind of work that will be significantly damaged if Trump’s budget suggestions for the State Department become law. As a former diplomat, I would like to share some anecdotes from my own experience. (For the longer story, check out From Cold War to Hot Peace: An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia.) The State Department needs reform, that’s true. I have written about this many times, including here. However, to compete with China, the State Department needs to get better and bigger, not smaller.

Some diplomatic work is well-known. Diplomats interact with their counterparts in foreign ministries worldwide to communicate policy positions. They also facilitate diplomatic engagements between senior U.S. officials and their counterparts during visits abroad. Diplomats take notes at these high-level meetings, which become “memcons”—memoranda of communication—for the rest of the U.S. government to read. And of course, diplomats approve visa applications for foreigners wanting to visit the United States.

In addition to these well-known functions, diplomats perform other tasks that advance American security, economic, and political interests.

First, diplomats directly advance American security interests. They work with governments to allow the Department of Defense to use their territory and ports for American military bases. From Greenland to the Solomon Islands, the United States has roughly 800 military bases in over 70 countries and territories—a tremendous advantage compared to China or Russia. U.S. diplomats help us maintain this impressive military footprint.

In 2009, when I worked as the senior director for Russia and Eurasia at the National Security Council, Russian Prime Minister Putin announced a multi-billion-dollar aid package for Kyrgyzstan if its president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, shut down an American air base—the Manas Air Base—in his country. Of course, the quid pro quo was never spelled out as explicitly as I just did. But it was clear to us at the White House that this was Putin’s intention. At the time, most of our soldiers deployed to Afghanistan transited through Manas before arriving at the battlefield. At the time, President Obama also decided to deploy additional forces to Afghanistan. The Pentagon could not have executed that mission without Manas. To ensure the base remained open, in July 2009, I hopped on a MILAIR (military aircraft) flight to Bishkek with Bill Burns, who at the time served as the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and was one of our most talented diplomats. We had dinner with President Bakiev and made an alternative offer. We could not compete in dollar terms with Putin’s offer, but Burns leveraged his decades of diplomatic experience to make the case for why maintaining our base served the interests of Kyrgyzstan and Bakiev. We succeeded, at least for several more years, in keeping the base open. That is an example of diplomacy achieving real security outcomes for the American people.

Share

Second, diplomats advance American economic interests. Often in close coordination with their in-country colleagues from the Department of Commerce, U.S. foreign service officers constantly seek new market opportunities for American companies, better trade deals for American exporters, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Embassies also help American universities recruit international students and encourage international tourists from around the world to visit (and spend money in) the United States.

As the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014, I did all these things. At our residence, Spaso House, I hosted almond growers and wine sellers from California, a trade delegation from Idaho led by the governor (a Republican, by the way), and the CEO of eBay, all to help U.S. companies sell their products and services in Russia. I participated in tours of Boeing facilities and was honored to attend a ground-breaking ceremony for General Motors in St. Petersburg with Henry Kissinger.

In one of my most intense efforts for an American company, our embassy helped an American jet engine company outbid a British competitor to secure a multi-billion-dollar contract with a Russian airline. Of course, all of that momentum in U.S.-Russia trade and investment is now over because of Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. However, these are the kinds of activities that American diplomats do every day worldwide to advance the economic interests of American companies and workers.

Third, diplomats advance the knowledge and understanding of U.S. foreign policymakers about the countries where they serve. Given technological advances—including email, the internet, and AI—some mistakenly believe that diplomats no longer provide unique intelligence for U.S. government officials back home. That is not true. If they are skilled in their trade, diplomats can cultivate unique and valuable contacts within government, industry, and society. Diplomats serving in small countries with few American or European reporters are especially valuable in educating decision-makers.

When I worked as the U.S. Ambassador in Russia a decade ago, there were certain pieces of intel that only diplomats picked up on. For instance, I remember reading a cable (the term we still use for call reports back to Washington) about contacts between evangelical leaders from churches in the American South and the Russian Orthodox Church, which I had never seen in the press or other sources of information. That cable prompted me to reach out to the “foreign minister” of the Russian Orthodox Church, someone I subsequently met frequently, to learn more about their role in cultivating ideological allies in the United States and Europe. (I recently wrote in The Atlantic about “The Tragic Success of Global Putinism.”) I also remember the day when I was in a senior government official’s office who took a call with Putin. Given my knowledge of Russian, I picked up on the fact that they were using the informal “ty” (you) instead of the more formal “vy.” That is valuable intel that you won’t find on social media. I also recall attending a party hosted by one of Russia’s oligarchs, where I met his second wife and learned that she preferred to vacation in St. Barts rather than Belarus. That was valuable intel, especially when the U.S. government began implementing sanctions against people close to the Kremlin after Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014. At a birthday party of another well-known businessman, I observed friendships between political figures and billionaires that one would never have apparent from reading the newspapers or scrolling on Twitter. Debriefings on my visits to the headquarters of the FSB (the successor organization to the KGB) were of particular interest to the American intelligence community. We will lose this unique channel of gathering intelligence if we cut funding for the State Department.

Finally, diplomats help foreign societies understand the United States in all its dimensions. In the spirit of what is known as “public diplomacy,” embassies worldwide bring musicians, entrepreneurs, athletes, students, and even movie stars to countries to showcase American culture and history. Such instruments of American soft power are especially important today when the image of America’s polarized political system is so tainted.

For me, this part of my job as an ambassador was my favorite. The first musical group we hosted at our residence was from my home state of Montana. Our guests loved it, especially when my wife and I got up and did the two-step. Saying some words of introduction (in Russian) in one of Moscow's largest concert halls before the Chicago Symphony dazzled the audience was a genuine moment of pride for me as an American. Hosting NBA players also helped America’s image. Attending the debut of Men in Black III in Russia with Will Smith was the ultimate demonstration of American soft power.

I also loved giving public talks to Russian audiences. It was the best way to undermine stereotypes about my country. Putin became so annoyed with the crowds that attended my talks that he eventually banned me from speaking at universities. So, I hosted students from Russian universities at my ambassadorial residence, Spaso House, instead. Meeting veterans of World War II was especially moving; they always recalled their fond memories of when we were allies. If we reduce our support for the State Department, we also reduce our opportunities to connect directly with the societies where our diplomats serve.

Xi Jinping is expanding Chinese funding for diplomacy. According to a study by the Lowy Institute, the People’s Republic of China now has a greater diplomatic presence worldwide than any other country, including the United States. If we are going to compete effectively with China and its autocratic allies over the next century of great power rivalry, we need more diplomats, not less.