September 16, 2025
Intended for teachers of diplomacy and related courses and for diplomacy practitioners, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.
Bruce Gregory
Affiliate Scholar
Institute for Public Diplomacy
and Global Communication
George Washington University
BGregory@gwu.edu | BGregory1@aol.com
Diplomacy’s Public Dimension Archive, Institute for Public Diplomacy & Global Communication, George Washington University
American Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Practitioners as Change Agents in Foreign Relations, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024). eBook text and paperback here. Kindle and paperback here.
Practitioners, scholars, and journalists continue to create an abundance of content on the dismantling of US diplomacy and the Trump administration’s adverse actions directed at individuals, instruments, and institutions. This list begins again with selected items available on the date of publication.
US State Department
“Service Disrupted: Firsthand Accounts from the Field,” September/October, The Foreign Service Journal.
William J. Burns, “A Letter to America’s Discarded Public Servants: You All Deserved Better,” August 20, 2025, The Atlantic.
Eric Ruben, “The Way Ahead.” | John “Dink” Dinkelman, “AFSA Carries On, With You.” | September/October, The Foreign Service Journal.
Abigail Williams and Dan De Luce, “U.S. Diplomats Say They’re Reluctant to Share Inconvenient Truths With the Trump Administration,” September 11, 2025, Newsweek.
“AFSA Statement on Foreign Service Officer Test Changes,” September 5, 2025, American Foreign Service Association.
Maren Brooks, “The Challenges of Reorganizing the State Department.” | Evan Cooper, “Congress: The Missing Link in State Department Reform.” | Dan Spokojny, “A Curriculum for the Foreign Service.” | Lee Voth-Gaeddert, “A Practitioner’s Framework: Science and Technology Integration at State.” September/October, The Foreign Service Journal.
John Dinkelman, “American Diplomacy Is Being Dismantled Before Our Eyes: Opinion,” August 19, 20-25, Newsweek.
John Dinkelman, “Trump’s State Department Cuts Are a Self-Inflicted Wound,” August 14, 2025. | Matthew Kroenig, “Trump’s State Department Reforms Are Necessary,” August 8, 2025, Foreign Policy.
Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell, “Marco Rubio’s Quest to Make the State Department Great Again | Opinion,” August 8, 2025, Newsweek.
Michael Rigas, “Opening Statement on Reforming the State Department to Compete in the 21st Century,” July 16, 2025, Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
International Exchanges
Mark Overmann and Paul Foldi, “Foreign Exchange Programs Under the Trump Administration,” September 8, 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America, C-SPAN.
Tara Sonenshine, “Fewer International Students Are Coming to the US, Costing Universities and Communities that Benefit From These Visitors,” September 12, 2025, The Conversation.
Anemona Hartocollis, “Trump’s Tactics Mean Many International Students Won’t Make It to Campus,” August 20, 2025, The New York Times. | Dan Gooding, “Fears Over Fulbright’s Future as Trump Admin Cuts Exchange Programs,” August 15, 2025, Newsweek.
Karin Fischer, “White House Uses Back Door to Axe Approved Funds for Exchange Programs,” August 14, 2025, The Chronicle of Higher Education. | Lydia DePillis and Jin Yu Young, “As Trump Pushes International Students Away, Asian Schools Scoop Them Up,” August 14, 2025, The New York Times.
“Save State Department International Exchange Programs,” August 2025, Alliance for International Exchange.
US Agency for Global Media
Anne Applebaum, “America Surrenders in the Global Information Wars,” September 8, 2025, The Atlantic.
Larry Diamond, Orville Schell, and Robert Daly, “Kari Lake’s Accusations About VOA and China Are Bad for the Country,” August 31, 2025, The Washington Post.
Minho Kim, “Judge Blocks Trump’s Firing of the Head of Voice of America,” August 28, 2025, the New York Times.
David Folkenflik, “Judge Orders Kari Lake to Answer Questions about Voice of America Under Oath,” August 26, 2025, NPR. | Scott Nover, “Judge Blocks Kari Lake, Tasked to Dismantle VOA, From Firing Its Director,” August 28, 2025, The Washington Post.
“An Interview with VOA Veteran John Lennon, by Bill Wanlund,” August 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
David Folkenflik, “Is Kari Lake a CEO? Her Agency Said So. The Law Suggests Not,” August 13, 2025, NPR. | Toluse Olorunnipa, “Kari Lake’s Attempt to Deport Her Own Employees,” August 12. 2025, The Atlantic.
David Folkenflik, “Voice of America Director Says Trump Officials Are Illegally Ousting Him,” August 6, 2025, NPR. | Scott Nover, “VOA Director Fired After Declining Reassignment to Low-level Post,” August 4, 2025, The Washington Post. | “Declaration of Michael Abramowitz,” Michael Abramowitz et al., v Kari Lake et. al., August 4, 2025, US District Court for the District of Columbia.
Daniel Golden, “Joseph McCarthy’s War on Voice of America,” August 4, 2025, Columbia Journalism Review.
US Institute of Peace
Laura Kelly, “Controversial Trump Official Appointed US Institute of Peace Chief,” July 28, 2025, The Hill. | Steve Benen, “Why the Trump Administration’s Choice to Lead the U.S. Institute of Peace is So Ridiculous,” July 28, 2025, MSNBC. | Alishvarya Kavi, “Fired Speechwriter From First Trump Term Appointed to Lead the Institute of Peace,” July 25, 2025, The New York Times.
Aishvarya Kavi, “Fired Speechwriter from First Trump Term [Darren Beattie] Appointed to Lead the Institute of Peace,” July 25, 2025, The New York Times. | “US Institute for Peace Taps State Dept Official and Right-wing Ideologue for Top Post,” July 26, 2025, Reuters.
American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) — Union Busting
Day Mount, “AFSA: A Union That Can’t Strike – Letter,” September 12, 2025, The Enterprise.
Eileen Sullivan, “Trump Orders Have Stripped Nearly Half a Million Federal Workers of Union Rights,” September 1, 2025, The New York Times.
Ralph R. Smith, “‘It’s Going to Be Devastating’: Court Order Oks Trump Order Impacting Federal Union Dues and Bargaining Power,” July 17, 2025, FedSmith.
Corneliu Bjola and Markus Kornprobst, “Studying Tech Diplomacy — Introduction to the Special Issue on Tech Diplomacy,” Global Policy, July 3, 2025. Bjola (University of Oxford) and Kornprobst (Diplomatic Academy of Vienna) explore three ideas in this article. First, they provide a “refined definition” of tech diplomacy as a knowledge category that is (1) focused on “innovation power,” (2) distinct from digital and science diplomacy and “inherently dynamic”, and (3) polylateral, meaning not limited to state actors. Second, they introduce an analytical framework containing three interrelated elements (order, agency, and technology) for studying tech diplomacy. Third, they summarize chapters in this special collection that examine tech diplomacy through state-led strategies, multistakeholder engagement, and regulatory initiatives intended to change global governance and address inequalities brought by technological disruption. The author’s conclude that “tech diplomacy” is both an “arena where global norms are contested, negotiated and established and a “tool for building a more adaptive and equitable global governance system.”
Charlotte Epstein and Ole Wæver, “The Turn to Turns in International Relations,” European Journal of International Relations, 2025, 1-28. Epstein (Danish Institute for International Studies) and Wæver (University of Copenhagen) examine the meaning of turns as modes of organizing knowledge distinct from theories and schools in international relations (IR). Examples include turns toward things that are practiced, emotional, quantic, aesthetic, visual, and material. Part one of their article examines turn orientations: turns that build on what’s going on, turns that re-code for what has been overlooked, and turns that register changes in direction. Part two explores values, implicit and explicit, in varieties of turns. What’s new is valorized over what’s old. What’s wide and inclusive is better than narrow domains of traditional IR. What’s concrete and particular is prioritized over what’s abstract and general. What’s politicized or depoliticized by critical IR scholars in critiques of mainstream IR’s understudied inequalities of race, class, and gender. Part three identifies research risks and poses five “slow-down questions” for turn scholars to consider.
(1) Does a new turn sufficiently deconstruct what was foreclosed in earlier analysis?
(2) What structures of social power underwrite a proposed turn and what has been contested in epistemological tools imported from other fields?
(3) Where does a proposed turn (re)allocate politics?
(4) To what extent does scholarly responsibility require human subjects and language? (5) How central is the novelty claim to the proposed turn?
Epstein and Wæver have written a deeply researched interrogation of turns in IR. Scholars who espouse the practice turn and the public turn in diplomacy studies will find it a valuable critique against which to test their ideas. (Article suggested by Geoffrey Wiseman)
Elsa Hedling, “Coping With Digitalization in Diplomacy: Autonomy and Discretion at the Digital Frontlines,” European Journal of International Relations, June 12, 2025. Hedling (Lund University) examines (1) digital stress — brought by bureaucratic processes, government instructions, and organizational change — and (2) coping strategies of diplomacy practitioners defined as “knowledge workers” who create particular kinds of practical knowledge and who communicate and negotiate on behalf of governments. Her article begins with a review of studies on ways diplomats are adapting to digitalization through organizational change and “spontaneous and tacit appropriations” of digital technologies in the field. Wide ranging citations focus on the role of digital tools in crisis management, support for citizens abroad, analysis and reporting, communication outside negotiations, public diplomacy, and other activities. Drawing on Michael Lipsky’s workon “street-level bureaucrats,” she discusses a variety of coping strategies used by diplomacy practitioners: seeking support from others, avoiding situations, adopting routines, engaging in problem solving, subtle non-compliance, creative interpretation of policies, and resistance to directives perceived as unjust, ineffective, or not in the best interest of those served.
Hedling’s findings are based on fieldwork and interviews with diplomats in 13 European Union member states from 2016 to 2024. For her purposes, they were frontline in the sense of being “tasked with ‘digital knowledge work’ while operating at a relative distance from the strategic decisions and commitments partly driving digitalization in diplomacy.” She synthesizes their coping strategies in three broad patterns: routinization, prioritizing, and risk-taking. She concludes with observations on what can be learned from coping strategies, the need for further research, and the value of bridging digital diplomacy studies with the emerging study of international public administration. This is a cutting-edge article with considerable value for teachers, scholars, and practitioners.
Mitchell Hobbs, Mei Li, Zhao Alexandre Huang, and Lucile Desmoulins, “Storytelling and Grand Strategy in Public Diplomacy: A Case Study of the Speeches of President Xi Jinping,” Public Relations Review, Vol. 51, Issue 4, November 25, 2025. Hobbs and Li (University of Sydney) and Huang and Desmoulins (Gustave Eiffel University, France) argue that leaders, including those in authoritarian states, use stories and strategic narratives to gain domestic support, define adversaries, and influence foreign publics. Drawing on shared conceptual and practical foundations of public diplomacy and public relations, they analyze speeches of President Xi Jinping to show how storytelling advances China’s grand strategy. Stories embedded with national histories, cultural values, and aspirations, they conclude, allow political leaders to foster identification through invitational rhetoric rather than overt persuasion.
Zhao Alexandre Huang and Xiang Meng, “China’s Strategic Approach to Tech Diplomacy in a Time of Global Uncertainty,” Global Policy, July 14, 2025. Huang (Gustave Eiffel University, France) and Meng (Hong Kong Polytechnic University) write about the concept of tech diplomacy — which they explain is the dissemination of knowledge and diplomatic practice at the intersection of scientific and technological development to promote interests and shape international relations. They investigate its use by China to respond to geopolitical challenges and institutionalize global technological norms. They conclude from their analysis that the Chinese government’s approach to tech diplomacy contains multiple dimensions: a tripartite separation of science diplomacy, technology diplomacy, and digital diplomacy; the importance of ideology in shaping and disseminating knowledge; the significant influence of technology companies; and interpretations of tech diplomacy framed by a critique of Western efforts to monopolize technology and block Chinese technological development.
Donald Kilburg, AI Use Cases for Diplomats: Applying Artificial Intelligence to Diplomacy, Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2025. DonKilburg, a retired US Foreign Service officer (2003-2025), draws on his public diplomacy assignments and expertise in technology and the social sciences to examine ways in which AI challenges diplomacy and sovereignty. AI technology “can streamline diplomacy” if used wisely, he argues, “but only humans can bring the empathy and intuition that make negotiations succeed.” His book interrogates AI’s uses in a broad range of diplomatic categories: political, economic, public affairs and consular affairs, management, diplomatic security, using technology and smart tools, and leveraging AI for whole of government diplomacy. An appendix with 100 AI cases, a glossary of AI terms for diplomats, and his book’s themes of cautious use and careful monitoring add to its value as a field manual for practitioners and policymakers. A table of contents with chapter abstracts is available here.
Kevin Maloney and James Ketterer, “Illiberal Narratives and Shifting Values: Examining Competing Visions of the U.S. and Its Role in the World,” Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, August, 2025. Maloney (Carnegie Council) and Ketterer (Bard College) draw on the “strategic narratives” scholarship of Alister Miskimmon, Ben O’Loughlin, and Laura Rosen (Forging the World, 2017) to argue that the values consensus and soft power institutions, supported by liberal narratives for nearly 80 years, have fractured. New illiberal values-based narratives are emerging in the second Trump administration that systematically seek to leverage, manipulate, and obscure the language of liberal values to achieve illiberal political ends. Their report cites the dismantling of soft power institutions and the rhetoric of Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It then summarizes the views of scholars and practitioners assembled by the Council in June 2025 in four areas. First, the emergence of illiberal narratives, the condition of American soft power, and the authoritarian sympathies of the Trump administration. Second, the media and misinformation ecosystem in the context of anti-media narratives, the lure of community over truth, and “strategic poisoning” in the era of AI. Third, the illiberal turn in norms regarding the rule of law. Fourth, the combination of malign information and truth in illiberal narratives deployed in the contested geopolitical terrain between autocracies and democracies.
Ilan Manor, “A ‘Tech First’ Approach to Foreign Policy? The Three Meanings of Tech Diplomacy,” Global Policy, June 23, 2025. Manor (Ben Gurion University of the Negev) continues his pioneering research on digitalization and diplomacy with this open access article in which he conceptualizes tech diplomacy, not as a new kind of diplomacy, but as the use of technologies to facilitate bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in the context of “Permacrisis” — described as a condition of enduring instability driven by technological innovation and growing estrangement between states. For Manor, tech diplomacy has three meanings. First, it is a form of “proactive digitalization” signifying how diplomats and foreign ministries contend with new digital technologies. Second, it means ways in which diplomats manage tech-related issues. Third, it denotes a “Tech First” approach to policies in which tech-based negotiations are a first step in resolving broader issues in conflict. Manor explores each in detail, discusses their implications using a case study of a cryptocurrency regulation agreement negotiated by the US and China, and discusses tech diplomacy’s potential and limitations.
There is much on offer for practitioners in this article, including suggestions for institutional change in foreign ministries. An issue that deserves greater attention is the problem of complexity and cross-category knowledge. As technologies and policy domains multiply and become more complex, diplomats and ministries in whole of government diplomacy cannot possess sufficient operational knowledge in each domain. They need broad issue awareness and lateral skills to leverage outside expertise in ways that are diplomatically productive. The US Defense Department has long managed demand for technology expertise through affiliation with government funded research and development organizations. The US State Department endorsed a similar approach for the first time in the Biden administration. It was a good idea that warrants continued support.
“The Price of Retreat: America Cedes Global Leadership to China,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Minority Report, July 2025. Led by Ranking Member Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), the ten Democratic members of the Committee signed this 91-page staff-written report. It warns that President Trump’s “sweeping and non-strategic cuts to our diplomatic tools and international standing” present a strategic challenge distinct from any in US history and a retreat from global leadership. Although pegged to “deeply undermined U.S. competitiveness” with China, the report adopts a global perspective. Its recommendations address the Trump administration’s chaotic weakening of diplomatic tools, methods, and resources. Included are the following. (1) Reconstitute essential capabilities in foreign assistance. (2) Reject downsizing and potential elimination of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. (3) Prepare a National Intelligence Assessment of the impact of foreign assistance dismantling on national security. (4) Re-establish counter-disinformation functions and support for global independent media. (5) Robust funding for US-led international educational and cultural exchange programs. (6) Legislation requiring justification of large-scale reductions of diplomatic personnel. As with many Congressional reports, it is long on goals and short on road maps leading to institutional reforms. Nevertheless, its numerous case studies, compelling visuals, hundreds of footnotes, and rich grounding in open-source data make it an exceptionally useful document for students, scholars, and policy analysts.
U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, “Subcommittee on Research and Evaluation Annual Report to Congress,” May 2025. In 2021, Congress mandated that the Commission create a subcommittee on Research and Evaluation to advise the State Department’s Public Diplomacy Undersecretariat (R) on audience research, digital analytics, and impact evaluations carried out by State and the US Agency for Global Media. The subcommittee’s first report summarizes R’s “State of PD Baseline Report;” provides a descriptive overview of eight PD offices responsible for most PD audience research, measurement and evaluation, and digital analytics; and makes six recommendations. Subcommittee members include Matt Baum (Harvard University), Chelsey Kilzer (Analytics, Publicis Media), Dan Spokojny (Founder and CEO, fp21), Maureen Taylor (University of Technology, Sidney), and Richard Wike, (Pew Research Center).
Geoffrey Wiseman, “Book Review: Delegated Diplomacy: How Ambassadors Establish Trust in International Relations,” Australian Institute of International Affairs,” July 4, 2024. In Delegated Diplomacy (2023), political scientist David Lindsey (City University of New York) draws on extensive quantitative and qualitative research to support his claim that credibility, building trust, and balancing home and host country interests are “the primary diplomatic challenge” for practicing diplomats. In his review, Wiseman (DePaul University) focuses on Lindsey’s assertion that diplomats should not be “excessively sympathetic to their hosts,” but rather should convey a situationally appropriate “intermediate” sympathy. His review sheds light on Lindsey’s attention to the neglected concept of “localitis,” or clientitis, in diplomacy studies, motives of leaders in choosing ambassadors, and a “loyalty paradox” in which diplomats can effectively serve national interests with divided loyalties. Wiseman suggests the argument for “a kind of measured localitis” is being tested in the second Trump administration where loyalty to the president is paramount. Lindsey’s and Wiseman’s reflections prompt an additional consideration: the need for scholars to explore the complex trust and empathy challenges for public diplomats. They must attend not only to the wishes of political leaders at home but often must communicate simultaneously with leaders in power and publics out of power abroad.
Recent Items of Interest
Amr Aljowaily, “Publications By Diplomats: Public Diplomacy Par Excellence,” September 10, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Mark L. Asquino and Patricia H. Kushlis, “Foreign Service Budget Cuts Should Be Reversed,” July 26, 2025, Santa Fe New Mexican.
Mieczyslaw Boduszynski, “When Messaging Undermines the Messenger: How the Second Trump Adminstration is Squandering America’s Greatest Public Diplomacy Asset in Europe,” July 15, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
James L. Bullock, “Politization of Military Public Affairs?” August 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Myoung-Gi Chon, “From Korean Wave to Cultural Diplomacy: Proposing the Cultural Anchoring Model for Identifying Global Publics,” September 4, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Nicholas J. Cull, “Looking for God at the Osaka Expo,” September 15, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Christopher Datta, “The Effectiveness of American Libraries in Promoting American Values and Diplomacy,” September, 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Charlie English, “‘1984’ Hasn’t Changed, But America Has,” July 27, 2025, The New York Times.
Julie Gerstein and Margaret Sullivan, “Is Objectivity Still Worth Pursuing?” July 10, 2025, Columbia Journalism Review.
James B. Greenberg, “What Makes Protest Matter,” August 4, 2025, Substack.
Joe Johnson, “New Public Diplomacy Meets Trump Diplomacy,” August 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Thomas Kent, “Russia Prepares to Fill the USAID Gap,” July 21, 2025, The National Interest.
Paul Hare, “Why Trump’s ‘Truth Social Public Diplomacy’ Leads to Few Diplomatic Wins,” August 18, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Michael Hurley, “Shifting Sands for Public Diplomacy in the USSR and Russia,” August 2025, American Diplomacy.
Ilan Manor, “AI’s Country of Origin Effect,” September 10, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Najmedin Meshkati and Bright (Dokyeong) Lee, “Beyond Hard and Soft Power,” September 4, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Mike Pence and Ed Feulner, “Rediscovering Order in an Age of Populism,” Summer 2025, National Affairs.
“Q&A With CPD: Sherry Lee Mueller,” July 14, 2025, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Amro Shubair, “The Engine of Diplomacy,” August 7, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Dan Spokojny, “The Art of Foreign Policy — and the Limits of Science,” August 25, 2025 | “‘Old’ Versus ‘New’ Public Diplomacy,” [Conversation with Paul Kruchoski], August 11, 2025, Substack.
Karl Stoltz, “The Fog of Hybrid War (Part One),” June 24, 2025. | “The Fog of Hybrid War (Part Two),” July 22, 2025, Deft9 Solutions.
Alex Thurston, “The State Department Between Rubio’s Cuts and Structural Limitations,” July 16, 2025, Substack.
Matthew Wallin, “Carelessly Reducing the Size of the State Department is a Profound Mistake,” July 16, 2025, American Security Project.
Amy B. Wang, “Trump Administration Pulling U.S. Out of Cultural Agency UNESCO Again,” July 22, 2025, The Washington Post.
Bill Wanlund, “Please Don’t Look Away,” July 2025. PDCA.
Lamia Zia and Shane McNeil, “From Silk Routes to Silicon Routes: The New Map of Data Diplomacy,” July 15, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Gem from the Past
Sherry Lee Mueller and Mark Overmann, Working World: Careers in International Education Exchange and Development, Georgetown University Press (2nd ed), 2014.Occasionally practice-oriented books become indispensable, filled with wisdom and valuable insights that hold up in changed circumstances. Working World is such a book. Mueller (American University, Public Diplomacy Council of America) and Overmann (Alliance for International Exchange), outstanding leaders and models of professional excellence in the field of exchanges, provide sage counsel for those making career choices. Among their many topics: entry level and mid-career strategies, shaping a career philosophy, the art of networking, the value of mentors, internships and volunteer opportunities, and profiles of successful careers in a wide range of government, civil society, and multinational domains.
Working World has enduring value as a roadmap for those navigating change in an era of great uncertainty for people, programs, and institutions in international exchanges.
An archive ofDiplomacy’s Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites (2002-present) is maintained at George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication. Current issues are also posted by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy, the Public Diplomacy Council of America,
and Len Baldyga’s email listserv.