Trump and the Deep State at State
Normal transition . . . and potential red flags.

WaPo (“Scores of career State Dept. diplomats resign before Trump’s inauguration“):
Scores of senior career diplomats are resigning from the State Department effective at noon on Monday after receiving instructions to do so from President-elect Donald Trump’s aides, three U.S. officials familiar with the matter said.
The forced departures, aimed at establishing a decisive break from the Biden administration, will result in an exodus of decorated veterans of the Foreign Service, including John Bass, the undersecretary for management and acting undersecretary for political affairs, and Geoff Pyatt, the assistant secretary for energy resources, said the officials, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel decisions ahead of Monday’s inauguration.
Requesting the resignations, the prerogative of any incoming administration, indicates a desire to quickly shift the tone and makeup of the State Department as Trump seeks to upend the global diplomatic chessboard after four years of President Joe Biden. Key priorities for Trump include imposing sweeping tariffs on allies and adversaries, ending the war in Ukraine, solidifying the wobbly ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants.
“It is entirely appropriate for the transition to seek officials who share President Trump’s vision for putting our nation and America’s working men and women first. We have a lot of failures to fix, and that requires a committed team focused on the same goals,” said a spokesperson for the transition team.
I’m a bit befuddled that the incoming administration even had to ask. It’s customary for all people in presidentially-appointed posts to offer their resignation at the start of a new presidential term. People with “Secretary” in their title certainly fill the bill.
What’s unclear is whether they have simply resigned their Plum Book posts and are going to be reassigned to non-appointed positions in the Senior Foreign Service or they are leaving government entirely. If they were coerced into the latter, it would be highly problematic. Career officials are entitled to Civil Service protections.
What is more unusual is this:
Some incoming presidents choose to keep a larger stable of career diplomats in senior roles until handpicked political appointees receive Senate confirmation. Instead, Trump has authorized the selection of more than 20 “senior bureau officials” to take over various divisions where leadership posts are being vacated this week. A number of those officials served in key roles in the State Department and the National Security Council during Trump’s first term, and some have been pulled out of retirement, officials familiar with the matter said.
That’s too murky to assess. Presidents are allowed to appoint people at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level and below without Senate confirmation and those people are allowed to serve in an Acting capacity in higher roles. But the highest roles are required to be filled by either Senate-confirmed personnel or career civil servants.
Trump campaigned on dismantling what he has called the “deep state” of federal bureaucrats whom he views as lacking loyalty and undermining his agenda. He has pledged to kill workforce protections for thousands of government employees in a move expected to face significant legal challenges.
As I’ve told our students in my introductory lecture on the US National Security decisionmaking process the last several years, what some call “the deep state” others call “national security professionals.”
Trump has the right to try to get the apparatus of state to bend to his policy will even if it offends their professional sensibilities. He’s the elected President and Chief Diplomat. But he’ll need Congress to go along to remove Civil Service protections. And President Biden has agreed to all manner of other protections for those in collective bargaining positions. Those will be very hard, if not impossible, to untangle.
His pick for secretary of state, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), said the State Department needs to prioritize Trump’s “America First” agenda, and he vowed to make the department “relevant again.”
“What has happened over the last 20 years under multiple administrations is the influence of the State Department has declined,” Rubio said at his confirmation hearing last week. “We have to be at that table when decisions are being made, and the State Department has to be a source of creative ideas and effective implementation.”
That’s really a wholly separate issue. When Congress created the National Security Council in 1947, President Truman thought it was an unconstitutional encroachment on his authority and largely shunted it aside, preferring to make foreign policy exclusively in conjunction with the Secretary of State.
The Korean War and the permanent national security posture of the Cold War changed that, greatly increasing the role of the Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence/Director of National Intelligence and, eventually, National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But, certainly, a President who wanted to rely more on the State Department has the ability to do so.
One senior official who was asked to resign said he was willing to serve longer to help bridge the gap but underscored that this is Trump’s call to make. “We should all wish the new team success,” the official said.
A second diplomat who was asked to resign said the Trump team handled the matter professionally and made clear the request wasn’t personal.
“They want to have people in place whom they’ve worked with before who are known quantities,” the official said.
That actually gives me some hope. It sounds like the matter was handled much more professionally than much of the first term would have led me to expect.
One such official is Lisa Kenna, who heads the State Department’s intelligence arm called the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Kenna worked as the executive secretary for then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. She is expected to reprise that role and serve also as acting undersecretary for political affairs. The latter job is one of the most challenging in the building, overseeing regional bureaus from Asia to Latin America to Africa to Europe. “They’re both full-time jobs,” one official said.
Kenna is a career State Department employee with the rank of Minister Counselor. Interestingly, she was appointed as Ambassador to Peru in May 2020, confirmed by the Senate in November of that year, and served in that role through September 2023—entirely during the Biden presidency—before returning to State in her current capacity.
But this is somewhat concerning:
Last week, Trump’s aides asked three senior career diplomats who oversee the department’s workforce and internal coordination to resign in a move reported by Reuters. The career officials were Dereck Hogan, Marcia Bernicat and Alaina Teplitz.
The top diplomat for East Asia, Dan Kritenbrink, served his last day as assistant secretary on Friday and will retire Jan. 31. Kritenbrink, like Bass, Pyatt and other career officials, served in influential positions under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
Another career diplomat said the forced resignations are occurring “a little quicker” than in previous administrations but that it is common for a new administration to eventually pick new career diplomats for Senate-confirmed positions like those held by Bass and Pyatt. Other officials expressed frustration that the request to resign, on the Friday before the inauguration, came with little warning and that they have no indication whether they may apply for other jobs within the department.
The Senior Foreign Service—and, indeed, the Foreign Service, period—is a different animal than the Defense Department and I have considerably less expertise in its precise function. It would be unconscionable, indeed, if career SFS officials were simply kicked out of government because they happened to be appointed to senior posts by the outgoing administration.
Note that Kenna, who was not only confirmed to the ambassadorship after Trump’s election loss but served as Pompeo’s right hand was not only retained in the ambassadorship—an appointed post—but then assigned to another senior State post afterward. We don’t punish career officials for being seconded to posts that serve a presidential administration.
It’s unclear how far the Trump administration will go in rooting out perceived enemies at Foggy Bottom, which Trump often calls the “Deep State Department.”
The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Brian Mast (R-Florida), has told reporters that pushing back against “woke” bureaucrats should be a priority.
Anyone “nefariously supporting a radical agenda … should be aware that we’ll be looking for them,” he said last week, “and we will be looking for creating authorities to make sure that their existence doesn’t continue in the State Department.”
That, of course, is a red flag. Presidents, and to a lesser extent oversight committee chairmen, have a right to insist that career officials carry out their policy aims. They do not have a right to fire those with policy preferences with which they disagree.
You may be assuming a fact not in evidence. It’s very possible that a “leader” as mercurial and lacking in temperance as Trump made that request preemptively.
On the other hand, if you have knowledge that DoS officials refused to resign, go ahead and say so and chastise them for it. Either way, please stop expressing “befuddlement” at what’s going on. It’s gonna be a long 4 years and your sanity may suffer if you keep trying to reason these things out. “I’m befuddled” is probably a bad look going forward.
This is really far too into-the-weeds for the concept of “The Deep State.”
The 3 richest men on the planet are going to be seated in the front row at the inauguration today. They run policy, period dot.
The 16th highest person down the hall from a lieutenant JG assistant to a politically appointed undersecretary of navel-gazing is all so much donut and coffee purchasing.
If the purpose of Trump is to “eliminate the deep state” .. what, exactly, does MAGA think the deep state is?
Trump isn’t eliminating The Deep State or draining the swamp.. he IS the deep state, he IS the swamp.
Trump may very well be removing one group of people and elevating another — that doesn’t mean the economic and social interests of the people leaving or the people entering are any different. One framework for much of history is simply differing groups of elites fighting for control.. and this is no different.
Just because Trump puts someone in a position… that does absolutely NOT mean that person is somehow now going to change the policy of the position and benefit The MAGA Base. I’ve seen nothing to suggest Trump’s “new” people aren’t simply going to promote oligarchy harder.
As Dave Chappelle said about MAGA when he went to vote in Southern Ohio: “You dumb (expletive). You are poor. He’s fighting for me.”
@James Joyner
Has the right? We’re talking about a malignant personality here who has engaged in security risks in the past and has signaled more of the same in the future. What about our citizenry’s right to rational, non-chaotic governance having more likelihood of seamless functionality with incremental change instead of with widespread upheaval?
Presidents have an obligation to manage our affairs without damaging our lives.
Those “professional sensibilities” represent corporate memory of how things work, how the world works, how people behave, and continuity of values.
Granted, Trump wants to blow things up, scrape down past the foundation, and build anew, yet another edifice to feed his toxic narcissm. But, the structure and culture of government, the rules that people like Trump and Musk chaff against, those things function as an internal “governor” that keeps government from dangerous “overspeed.”
Trump’s internal guidance in this respect is historically bad. The better administrations have allowed a bridging of policy rather than shocking the system.
Now that we are in for four more years (1458 days) of Trump’s petulant demands, I’m going to ask you again not to amplify them. In particular, “Trump has the right.”
“I have the right” is what five-year-olds and Trump like to demand. Most of the time, he and you are talking about something that is part of his job description. It is not a right in the sense of human rights or the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Your use in today’s post could be argued to be marginally correct, but it’s lazy to pick up his language and a bad start to an administration that will have to be watched carefully.
Using the word “right” makes his actions and demands sound more justified than they are. Be careful in using it.
@just nutha: I’m not accusing anyone of anything. By every indication in the report, they are taking this as the incoming POTUS exercising his prerogative. I’m saying the framing is weird.
@Gavin: The Deep State construct has been well developed over the past few years. It’s about a bureaucracy trying to thwart the President from carrying out his policies. It’s not a new thing, but Trump’s reaction to it is way more vociferous than the norm.
@Rob1 and @Cheryl Rofer: POTUS has the right to try to execute his policies, constrained by Congress and the courts. Executive agencies should carry out his policies, insofar as they don’t violate the law and are implemented according to the Administrative Procedures Act and other legal strictures.
@James Joyner: He doesn’t have a “right,” he may try to execute those policies as part of his job.
But yeah, give him more credibility than he deserves.
@James Joyner
This discussion gets convoluted, but, Trump’s “right” (as with any President) derives from our “right” to choose our leaders, and our “right” to a voice.
With Trump’s “right” comes strong obligations and responsibilities, especially the responsibility to do no harm, bigly, to the citizens. We are not subjects. We have unalienable rights. Smashing functional government is counterindicated to all that.
To give Trump’s “right” to policy precedence over our “rights” to good stewardship was never intended.
@Rob1:
The people’s right to elected government overrides your assessment of good stewardship.
@James Joyner: My apologies. I didn’t intend for you to think that I think you’re accusing anyone of anything. But in fact, if you do know that officials were/are declining to resign in an effort to force Trump’s hand, as it were, by all means, call them out. It’s wrong to do that; even if Trump is the next guy.
But I also wonder about why you so easily concluded that Trump people formally requesting resignations was because the officials in question hadn’t offered them. Saying “I had to request their resignations” is a power move right up Trump’s alley. Because Trump people were making the claim, I would assume it was BS without evidence to the contrary. (But I go this way on most Trump claims, so I may not be the best source for reality-based reportage, either.)
@Fortune: So you’re admitting that Trump’s administration may well turn out to be harmful to the body politic and that the votes deserve what they voted for*. This is real progress. Follow up comment: Do you also agree that such an outcome would be a bad thing no matter how much the voters deserve it?
*I will note that both I and either Will Rogers or HL Menken (I can’t remember which, maybe both) concur on this point.
@Just nutha ignint cracker: I didn’t say that here but I’ve said it before. Trump is a bad person with some bad ideas, and even good presidents with good policy ideas can do harm. I’m sure I’ve criticized his tariffs, and I’m worried about Ukraine. I don’t expect people to study up on my positions though. What’s your question?
@Fortune:
B.S.
Our “rights” are right up on the front of this entire endeavor. They are the destination. We get “there” with our right to vote.
But sure, an authoritarian minded voter having just elected an authoritarian leader, might take the tack you suggest.
@Rob1: A president doesn’t have the right to take away our rights, if that’s what you mean. But we don’t have the right to a government of our liking. That’s my point. Your first comment suggested a right to good policy, but how do you define it except personally?
@Fortune: For someone like yourself who is confused about the essential meaning of Christ and given to spoonfed context formed by the self serving agenda of Man, it is understandable that the essential meaning and value of having a democracy would also be negotiable.