November 17, 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: Views from the Field,” November/December 2025, Foreign Service Journal.
“AFSA Responds to State Department’s Misleading Foreign Service Application Figures,” October 24, 2025, American Foreign Service Association.
“AFSA Statement on Impacts of Shutdown on Work of American Diplomacy,” October 17, 2025. | Sharon L. Papp, “Urgent Message from AFSA’s General Counsel” Your Rights Are at Risk,” October 2025, American Foreign Service Association.
Nahal Toosi, “Trump is Breaking US Diplomacy, State Department Staffers Say,” September 21, 2025, Politico
International Exchanges
Michael McCarry, “Ben Franklin Fellowship Critique of BridgeUSA,” October 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Bethany Allen and Jenny Wong Leung, “Trump’s Crackdown on Chinese Students Ignores a Startling New Reality,” October 19, 2025, The New York Times.
Aatish Bhatia and Amy Fan, “Nearly 20 Percent Fewer International Students Traveled to the U.S. in August,” October 6, 2025, The New York Times.
US Agency for Global Media
Ryan Knappenberger, “Trump Blocked From Gutting Voice of America Collective Bargaining Rights,” November 14, 2025, Courthouse News Service. |“AFSCME and AFGE Win Major Victory Against Trump Administration’s Efforts to Silence Voice of America Workers,” November 14, 2025, AFSCME.
[Liquidation of international production, broadcast, and headquarters equipment], November 2025, Rasmus Auctions.
Ja’han Jones, “Kari Lake Gives Viktor Orban a Major Gift Ahead of Trump Meeting,” November 6, 2025, MSNBC.
Minho Kim, “Radio Free Asia Will Halt News Operations Amid Shutdown,” October 29, 2925, The New York Times. | Scott Nover, “Radio Free Asia Will Stop Publishing Amid Funding Crisis Spurred by Trump,” October 29, 2025, The Washington Post.
Minho Kim, “Under Trump, Voice of America is Down, Not Out,” October 26, 2025, The New York Times.
Timothy Noah, “The New Deal Masterpieces Threatened By Trump’s D.C. Downsizing [Part 1],” September 30, 2025. | “There Was a Plan to Save These New Deal Masterpieces. Then Trump Won,” October 3, 2025, The New Republic.
Minho Kim, “Voice of America Stops All Broadcasting After Government Shuts Down,” October 1, 2025, The New York Times.
“Memorandum Order,” Widkuswara v. Lake; Abramowitz v. Lake, September 29, 2025, US District Court for the District of Columbia.
US Foreign Assistance
Zach Montague, “The Monthslong Legal Battle to Save Foreign Aid,” November 3, 2025, The New York Times.
Corneliu Bjola and Alicia Fjällhed, “Public Diplomacy in the Crossfire: Decoding Ukraine’s ‘Strategic Self’ During Wartime,” International Affairs, published online October 20, 2025. Bjola (Oxford University) and Fjällhed (Lund University) explore the meaning of public diplomacy (PD) in wartime using Ukraine’s response to Russia’s invasion as a case study. They make two claims. First, in hostile geopolitical contexts PD actors construct both a “Strategic Self” — understood as a “Projecting Self” that emphasizes values and resilience — and a “Distancing Self” that frames an adversary’s aggression and destabilizing actions. Balancing their interplay in strategic narratives is essential to credible and effective public diplomacy at home and abroad. Second, the authors argue that in wartime PD actors adopt forms of “othering,” meaning initiatives that widen rather than narrow political and cultural space between countries. Othering can have positive and negative characteristics. They support their conceptual arguments with a qualitative content analysis of the Twitter/X activities of ten Ukrainian governmental and non-governmental during three phases of the war. The article includes a literature review of PD during wartime, examination of the concepts of “othering” and identity, and discussion of the “Strategic Self” concept in public diplomacy. Well-constructed graphics help explain their research design and methodology.
Bjola and Fjällhed frame three findings in their conclusion. (1) “Othering” in wartime is both relational and adversarial. (2) PD in wartime need not lose credibility and become propaganda. (3) Balance and adaptability in PD are critically important in rapidly changing conflict dynamics. Scholars will find numerous ideas for further research in this thoughtful study. Testing its assumptions in the context of different digital platforms and other wars — and in gray zone conflicts and situations of non-hostile competition between war and peace. Development of the “Strategic Self” concept in the context of contemporary discourse on soft power and reputational security. And the concept’s relevance to the PD activities of government and non-government military and intelligence organizations.
Alice Ciulla, “Spreading Anti-Communism Among Elites? Public Diplomacy, Transnational Intellectual Exchange, and the Journal Problems of Communism,” European Journal of American Studies, 20(2), Summer 2025. Ciulla (Roma Tre University, Italy) examines the rise and historic significance of Problems of Communism, a journal of analysis and ideas published by the US Information Agency (USIA) throughout the Cold War and subsequently by the publisher Taylor & Francis as Problems of Post-Communism. Her deeply researched study places Problems of Communism in the context of US public diplomacy and Cold War ideological conflicts. It discusses the influence of the journal’s founding and longest serving editor, Abraham Brumberg, and its content, editorial trajectory, and contributors, many of whom were world-renowned scholars, emigres, and journalists. Ciulla compares the journal with other USIA publications and analyzes its impact on détente and adaptation in the post-Cold War context. Problems of Communism was “intellectually credible, ideologically engaged, yet editorially autonomous,” she argues, an effective hybrid form of public diplomacy. Founded at the height of McCarthyism, it stood apart as an informed critical analysis of communism by intellectuals in the liberal tradition.
Henry E. Hale and Ridvan Peshkopia, “Public Diplomacy—Dissonant Events and Country Favorability: Effects of Trump’s Election in the Balkans,” Foreign Policy Analysis, Vol. 21, Issue 4, October 2025.Hale (George Washington University) and Peshkopia (University for Business and Technology, Kosovë) develop a theoretical claim that events dissonant with a country’s longstanding public diplomacy can weaken its reputation in countries where its public diplomacy resonates strongly — and can strengthen its reputation where this resonance is weak or negative. Their article discusses the impact of Donald Trump’s election in 2016 on US favorability in three case studies. In pro-American Albania and among Albanians in Kosovo, Trump’s election had a substantial negative impact on American favorability. Among Russia-oriented Serbs in Serbia and Kosovo, Trump’s election enhanced America’s reputation. The authors argue their article casts new light on sources of country reputation and soft power, and the challenges democratic countries face when dissonant events in their democratic politics undercut traditional efforts to strengthen soft power through democratic reputation. The authors discuss their research methodology, its limitations, and special circumstances in the three case studies.
Robert Kelley, “Outsiders Running Amok: Disruption, Dissent, and Diplomatic Representation” in Anna Popkova, (ed), Disruption and Dissent in Public Diplomacy, pp. 39-55, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2025), [see below]. Eleven years ago, Kelley (American University) wrote convincingly about new ways to understand diplomacy’s actors, actions, and institutions in Agency Change: Diplomatic Action Beyond the State. This chapter builds on some of his earlier ideas. He opens with a discussion of conceptual and territorial boundaries — writing as a boundary skeptic who nevertheless understands the problems of boundary obliteration. He then offers thoughts on the meanings of “sustaining” and “disruptive” innovation in communication technologies and diplomatic space, rebels and dissenters as diplomatic actors, what he calls “the slippery concept of representation,” and reflections on the work of diplomacy scholar Paul Sharp, his views on representation, and his revised thinking a quarter century ago about citizens as diplomatic actors (“Making Sense of Citizen Diplomats: The People of Duluth, Minnesota, as International Actors.” [See Gem from the Past below.] Kelley’s chapter contains much to ponder, debate, and learn from.
Michael McFaul, Autocrats vs Democrats: China, Russia, America and the New Global Disorder, (Mariner Books, 2025). McFaul (Stanford University, media commentator, democratizer, former US ambassador to Russia) has written a deeply researched account of contemporary geopolitics through the optics of Putin’s Russia, Xi’s China, and Trump’s United States. Three questions frame his narrative. How did we transition from post-Cold War enthusiasm for democracy and globalization to an era of trending illiberalism internationally and autocracy at home? How should we understand today’s great power competition? And what new policies should be adopted? McFaul’s clear prose and measured assertions are grounded in an overview of several centuries of US-Russia and US-China relations. Chapters provide data-based assessments of great power competition (current as of April 2025) using categories of military, political, and economic power; ideology and soft power; and competing visions of global order. McFaul provides plenty of content on US public diplomacy’s tools, methods, and institutions: the rise and demise of democratization since the 1980s; Fulbright scholarships and other exchanges; and Trump’s destruction of US government media services and State Department programs. He also discusses the tools and methods of “global Putinism” and “Chinese instruments of ideological export.” McFaul concludes with a detailed policy agenda, reform proposals for institutions and future American leaders, and reflections on recovering from polarization and autocracy at home. His informed and provocative recommendations for US government media services and advancing democracy abroad will animate seminars, think tank forums, and the planning of reform minded practitioners.
Jan Melissen, HwaJung Kim, and Githma Chandrasekara, eds., Home Engagement in Diplomacy: Global Affairs and Domestic Publics, (Brill | Nijhoff, 2025). The innovative and wide-ranging chapters in this volume, edited by Melissen (Leiden University), Kim (Ewha Womans University), and Chandrasekara (independent researcher, Sri Lanka), are a significant contribution to the literature on diplomacy’s domestic dimension. A term understood by the editors to include mutual engagement between diplomats and domestic publics, the agency of citizens as stakeholders in foreign policy, diplomacy as a process co-constituted by societal actors, and the centrality of state-society interactions in addressing global problems. Their lead chapter examines “theories, concepts, and blind spots” in IR, foreign policy analysis, and diplomacy studies. It explores diplomacy’s growing societization and domestic engagement. Other conceptual frames include domestic publics in diplomacy, evolving relations between diplomacy and democracy, participatory governance in diplomacy, and people’s agency and identity in the digital age. Home Engagement in Diplomacy makes a persuasive case for a trending diplomacy research agenda focused on state-society interactions, diplomacy’s engagement with domestic publics, and disciplines in the social sciences beyond traditional IR and communications disciplines.
Jan Melissen, HwaJung Kim, and Githma Chandrasekara, “Introduction.”
Jan Melissen and Githma Chandrasekara, “Theorizing and Debating the Domestic Deficit in IR and Diplomatic Studies.”
César Jiménez-Martínez (London School of Economics and Political Science), “Citizens as Problems or Resources: Power, Diplomacy, and the Contested Voices of the Nation.”
Christian Opitz (Helmut Schmidt University), Hanna Pfeifer (University of Hamburg), and Anna Geis (Helmut Schmidt University), “The Evolution of Domestic Public Diplomacy in Germany: Engaging the ‘Public’ at Home on Foreign and Security Policy Since 1990.”
Christian Lequesne (Sciences Po), “Home Diplomacy Across Borders: Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy in France.”
Toshiya Takahashi (Shoin University, Japan), “Social Legitimacy, State-Society Relations and Non-State Actor Diplomacy in Japan.”
Yun Zhang, (Nanjing University), “Internal Societization of Diplomacy: The Disintegration of State-Society Relations and Its Moderating Effects on Japanese Diplomacy Toward China.”
HwaJung Kim, “Diplomacy and People: Contrasting Cases of the Two Koreas’ People-Empowerment Approaches to Diplomacy.”
Geoffrey Wiseman and Allison Scott (Depaul University), “Engaging Citizens in a Polarized Society: The Choices for US Diplomacy.”
Anna Popkova (Western Michigan University), “United States Citizen Diplomacy and the Domestic Publics Navigating the Contested Terrain of Diversity, Inclusion, and Representation in State-Supported Programs.”
Scott Michael Harrison (Simon Fraser University) and Quinton Huang (University of British Columbia), “Democratic Middle Grounds: Theorizing and Expanding the Role of Domestic Societies in Paradiplomatic Relations.”
Štěpánka Zemanová (Prague University of Economics and Business), “The Benefits and Pitfalls of Engaging Youth in Diplomatic Affairs: A Case Study of the Junior Diplomatic Initiative.”
Andrew F. Cooper (University of Waterloo), “Concluding Reflections.”
Anna Popkova, ed., Disruption and Dissent in Public Diplomacy, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2025). In this timely and original book, Popkova (Western Michigan University) invited accomplished scholars to examine the public diplomacy of an under-studied category of non-state diplomatic actors — diaspora groups, governments in exile, and others engaged in dissent and disruption. The book is grounded in three assumptions. First, although states possess significant power and authority, their claims of political legitimacy and representation are frequently challenged by non-state actors. These actors engage directly with publics and exercise public diplomacy capabilities that can matter as much or more than status. Second, disruption and dissent occur when groups believe the state does not represent, or misrepresents, their interests. In using diplomatic capabilities, and sometimes claiming representation, these nonstate actors can achieve political goals. Third, disruption and dissent — often perceived by states as negative when they occur within the state — can be a creative means to achieve advocacy and dialogue. Popkova does not treat disruption and dissent as inherently positive. But “they can be sources of diplomacy not “anti-diplomacy” by challenging the state abroad and engaging in construction of narratives at home. Disruption that interrupts a monologue, she argues, often helps to create a dialogue and mediate estranged relations. Her book is the latest in the Palgrave Macmillan Global Public Diplomacy Series, edited by founding co-editor Kathy R. Fitzpatrick (University of South Florida) and Series co-editor Vivian S. Walker (Georgetown University). Chapters include:
Anna Popkova, “Introduction.”
Ilan Manor (Ben Gurion University of the Negev), “Disruption in Public Diplomacy: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Term.”
Robert Kelley (American University), “Outsiders Running Amok: Disruption, Dissent, and Diplomatic Representation.”
Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), “Reputational Insecurity and Breaking Apartheid: Non-governmental Networks of Disruption and Dissent and the Case of South Africa.”
Colin R. Alexander (Nottingham Trent University, UK), “Ethical Public Diplomacy? Dissent as Collective Momentum or Collective Consciousness.”
Anna Popkova, “Dissent Beyond Borders: The Russian Opposition, Boris Nemtsov Plaza, and the Public Diplomacy of Transnational Advocacy.”
Aliaksei Kazharski (Charles University, Prague), Katsiaryna Lozka (Egmont Institute, Brussels), and Alesia Rudnik (Center for New Ideas, Warsaw). “Belarus’ Pro-Democracy Movement as a Public Diplomacy Actor: Identities and International Engagement.”
Nur Uysal (Depaul University), “Diaspora Publics as Disruptive Non-State Actors: The Case of the Kurdish Diaspora.”
Sara Shaban (University of Washington) and Anna Popkova, “Diaspora Positionality and Contested Diplomatic Representation: Iran’s Opposition Coalition and Woman, Life, Freedom Movement.”
Vanessa Bravo (Elon University), “When Migrants Oppose Other Migrant-Sending Countries’ Policies: Fighting Countries Who Are Supposed to Be Your Friends”
Tania Gómez -Zapata (Universidad de las Américas Puebla, Mexico), “Disapora Protests Abroad and Their Effect on Diplomatic Endeavors: The Ayotzinapa Case and ‘The Year of Mexico in the United Kingdom.’”
Anna Popkova, “Conclusions.”
Neal Rosendorf, “Only American Voters Can Reinvigorate U.S. Soft Power: A Rumination After Joe Nye’s Memorial Service,” October 10, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Rosendorf, a former IR professor at New Mexico State University and a research assistant to the late Harvard University professor Joseph Nye, reflects on his human qualities, his monumentally influential scholarship on the nature of power, and his insights into the consequences of Donald Trump’s dismantling of American soft power. Rosendorf summarizes Nye’s public comments on the damage done by Trump’s policies and actions, which he made until just days before his death in May 2025. His blog points to the relative ease and speed with which soft power can be lost — and the difficulties that must be overcome for soft power to be regained. Nye understood the stakes, for the interests of the United States and others, in rebuilding soft power. Rosendorf argues “America’s reputation has indeed been ruined,” and that American voters hold the key to reestablishing American soft power. In Nye’s absence, he urges, it is time for “academics, influencers, policy makers, and politicians . . . to get to work.”
“Michael Schneider Oral History,” 2025, Interviewed by Charles Stuart Kennedy, 2015, Foreign Affairs Oral History Program, Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, Arlington VA, ADST.org. In a lifetime devoted to public service and education, Mike Schneider’s career has spanned Foreign Service and Senior Executive Service assignments, senior leadership positions in the US Information Agency and State Department, many years teaching and advising students as head of Syracuse University’s Washington Program, and leadership in the Public Diplomacy Council of America and its predecessor organizations. His recently released 121-page oral history is filled with insights and first-hand information on US public diplomacy from the 1960s to the present. For scholars it is a rich addition to the literature on American diplomacy’s public dimension. For practitioners and others, it is a map of the past that contextualizes pathways forward in diplomacy and foreign relations.
Stephanie Christine Winkler, “‘Conceptual Entrapment,’: Understanding the Researcher-concept Relationship in Critical International Relations and Beyond.” European Journal of International Relations, Published online August 11, 2025. In this original and analytically penetrating article, Winkler (University of Stockholm and Goethe University Frankfurt) achieves several goals. First, she develops the idea of “conceptual entrapment” — “the complex and often constraining relationship between researchers and the concepts they engage” — as an under-studied element in Critical IR and the emerging field of Critical Concept Studies. She finds positive and negative elements in what on first impression sems an invidious term. Second, she introduces “autoethnography” as a method to illuminate complex and reflexive dynamics in researcher-concept relationships. Researchers, she argues, are not just external concept observers, but often they become “entangled” with concepts as theorists, critics, practitioners, and at times “concept entrepreneurs.” Meaning they “become enmeshed in the conceptual politics they seek to critique.” Third, she provides a compelling example of her arguments through an autoethnographic narrative of her research on soft power. A project that took her to fascination, skepticism, ambivalence, struggles with maintaining critical distance, experiences with soft power entrepreneurs, and a surprise email from Joseph Nye. He sent a positive review of her work that led her to reassess whether she had been sufficiently critical or become “too close to the soft power establishment I intended to critique.”
Winkler’s article, directly and by implication, raises interesting issues in the ethics and methods of critical scholarship. Does autoethnography produce criteria sufficient to achieve a higher standard of critical distance, more questions with elusive answers, or both, as she seems to suggest in her reflections on Nye’s email? Is critical distance more a journey than a destination? Is critical distance an unalloyed good, or are there research problems that benefit from critical proximity (e.g. democracy studies, diplomacy studies)? How does the reflexive researcher / concept connection alter the subject and object. That is, do the processes of observing and selecting lead to distortions in concepts and what is observed? Can researchers ever escape subjective influences or assumptions about human nature, norms, and the meaning of politics and society? Diplomacy scholars, practitioners, and those who travel between these domains will find Winkler’s article a significant contribution to the literature. (Article suggested by Geoffrey Wiseman)
Geoffrey Wiseman and Allison Scott, “Engaging Citizens in a Polarized Society: The Choices for US Diplomacy,” in Jan Melissen, HwaJung Kim, and Githma Chandrasekara, eds., pp. 211-249, Home Engagement in Diplomacy: Global Affairs and Domestic Publics, (Brill | Nijhoff, 2025), [see above]. Media voices and practitioners dominate the literature on US diplomatic practice in the era of Donald Trump. This makes the insights of diplomacy scholars Wiseman and Scott (DePaul University) especially welcome. Their chapter is a conceptually grounded comparison of US diplomacy during the first “populist” Trump administration (2017-2021) and the “conventional” Joseph Biden administration (2021-2025) — with a focus on diplomacy’s domestic dimension and whether American diplomats ameliorate or contribute to domestic political alienation and social polarization. It opens with a clear literature-based statement of their theoretical assumptions and definitions of politicization, populism, and polarization. Their empirical research includes reviews of the American Foreign Service Association’s website, issues of the Foreign Service Journal, writings of former diplomats, and academic and policy-related publications. The chapter explores “illiberal populist capture,” Trump’s politicization and sidelining of the State Department, and strategies of serving and retired US diplomats to resist political capture. It then examines Biden’s and Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s efforts to reclaim State’s professional role, focus more on diplomacy at home, adoption of diversity and inclusion principles, and restore “liberal internationalist engagement.”
Among their conclusions: (1) Trump’s politicization created a sense of urgency among US diplomats to strengthen home engagement competencies; (2) commitment to DEI principles is a test of any US administration’s domestic engagement as “whole of society” or “select-sectors-of-society;” (3) Biden and Blinken’s laudable objectives were perhaps weighted toward already well-disposed sectors of society and could not bridge the gap with rural America, and (4) US diplomats need to find more effective ways to manage populist capture and engage with American society. This timely chapter foregrounds issues in the second Trump administration and opportunities for further research.
Recent Items of Interest
S. Altay, S. Valenzuela, and P. N. Howard (eds.), “Trends in the Information Environment: 2025 Expert Survey Results,” October 2025, International Panel on the Information Environment.
Anne Applebaum, “The Beacon of Democracy Goes Dark,” October 14, 2025, The Atlantic.
Matt Armstrong, “Forgotten History of the Wilbur J. Cohen [Voice of America] Building,” October 16, 2025, Substack.
Joseph Copeland and Jocelyn Kiley, “Americans Say Politically Motivated Violence is Increasing, and They See Many Reasons Why,” October 23, 2025, Pew Research Center.
Shawn Dorman, ed., “In Their Own Write,” November/December 2025, Foreign Service Journal.
Bruce Gregory, “Reflections on IPDGC’s Origins, Vision, and Future,” November, 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Peter High, “The State Department’s CIO on Aiding Diplomacy By Modernizing Using AI,” October 14, 2025. Forbes.
Katherine Knott, “U.S. Continues to Drop in The World University Rankings,” October 9, 2025, Inside Higher Ed.
Julie Moyes, “The Soft Power of Historical Connections,” November 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Suzanne Nossel, “We’ve Forgotten What Soft Power Is,” October 28, 2025, Foreign Policy.
Rick Ruth, “The High Ground of Soft Power,” November, 2025. Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Amro Shubair, “Where Did Diplomacy Go?” October 15, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Karl Stoltz, “Democracy Dies in Discordance,” September 25, 2025, deft9 Solutions.
Mark Taplin, “25 Year Anniversary Special Blog Series: A Flagrant Act of Cultural Diplomacy,” November 2025, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication.
Karen Walker, “Life After State: Employment Opportunities in Academe,” November 2025, Public Diplomacy Council of America.
Lamia Zia, “YouTube As A Tool of Soft Power in the Digital Age,” November 13, 2025, CPD Blog, USC Center on Public Diplomacy.
Gem from the Past
Paul Sharp, “Making Sense of Citizen Diplomats: The People of Duluth, Minnesota, as International Actors,” International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 2001, pp 131-150. Robert Kelley’s chapter in Anna Popkova’s edited collection [see above] prompts this note on Paul Sharp’s (University of Minnesota, Duluth) prescient article a quarter century ago. His considered analysis of citizen diplomacy, a term long used by practitioners in people-to-people exchanges, prompts reflections on its value in today’s diplomacy landscape. In part one Sharp explained why he changed his views from thinking citizen diplomacy unimportant to an evidence-based assessment of its meaning and value. In part two he offered a typology of citizen diplomats and assessments of what professional practitioners might say to them. The full scope of his reasoning cannot be summarized here. Almost every paragraph prompts reflection on his arguments in the context of current issues in academic research and diplomatic practice. His article is well worth reading today as the scholarly literature focuses increasingly on diplomacy’s “societization” and “home engagement,” “boundary spanners of humanity,” and diplomacy’s “public dimension.”
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.