The long-standing institutional framework underpinning U.S. foreign policy — designed to ensure coordinated, prepared, and consistent international engagement — has reportedly experienced significant erosion, a trend that began under the Trump administration and continues to spark debate over its potential perils for American global leadership and national security. Critics and observers point to a systematic dismantling of established processes, a diminished role for career experts, and a shift towards more personalized, ad hoc decision-making, raising questions about the resilience and effectiveness of future U.S. diplomatic efforts.
Erosion of Established Architecture
The systematic and institutionalized architecture that evolved over decades in the U.S. to coordinate, prepare, and implement foreign policy began to erode significantly starting in 2017. This erosion, as outlined by numerous foreign policy veterans and scholars, manifested in several key areas. The State Department, traditionally the lead agency for diplomacy, saw its budget slashed, ambassadorial posts left vacant for extended periods, and career professionals marginalized or sidelined. Many experienced diplomats either retired prematurely or were pushed out, leading to a significant loss of institutional memory and expertise.
The National Security Council (NSC), intended to be the central coordinating body for interagency foreign policy development and strategic planning, experienced frequent turnover in its leadership and was sometimes bypassed in favor of direct communication channels or smaller, less formal groups. This approach often circumvented the rigorous interagency vetting process that ensures policy decisions are thoroughly considered from multiple perspectives, including defense, intelligence, and economic implications. The reliance on institutional memory and expert analysis, hallmarks of a robust foreign policy apparatus, reportedly waned. Instead, decisions were often perceived as driven by individual preferences, immediate political considerations, or the exigencies of presidential temperament. This approach, while perhaps offering agility in certain instances, fundamentally undermined the predictability and coherence that allies and adversaries alike had come to expect from U.S. foreign policy.
"What we saw was not just a reorganization, but a fundamental deconstruction of the mechanisms that ensure policy consistency and expertise," said Ambassador Eleanor Vance (ret.), a former Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs. "It wasn't just about different policy choices; it was about tearing down the very infrastructure designed to make those choices informed and sustainable. The systematic process of gathering intelligence, consulting experts, and coordinating across agencies was often sidelined, replaced by a more improvisational approach."
Current Landscape and Restoration Efforts
While the Biden administration has outwardly pledged to restore diplomacy, rebuild alliances, and reaffirm the role of career professionals, the structural damage inflicted upon the foreign policy machinery may prove more challenging to repair than initially anticipated. Efforts to repopulate diplomatic ranks and reaffirm the State Department's central role are underway, with a renewed emphasis on multilateralism and alliance building. However, the institutional culture and the trust in established processes, both domestically and among international partners, require time and sustained commitment to fully recuperate.
Some analysts suggest that a degree of personalized diplomacy, a hallmark of the previous administration, may have inadvertently persisted or left a lasting imprint, making a full return to pre-2017 norms difficult. The challenge lies not just in filling vacant positions, but in rebuilding the confidence and morale of the foreign policy workforce, and in re-establishing the credibility of institutional processes as the primary drivers of U.S. international engagement.
The Perils of Deinstitutionalization
The potential perils of this deinstitutionalization are multifaceted and far-reaching, impacting America's standing, influence, and ability to navigate a complex global landscape. A lack of robust institutional processes can lead to erratic and inconsistent policy shifts, making it difficult for allies to rely on U.S. commitments and for adversaries to accurately predict reactions, potentially inviting miscalculation. This unpredictability can weaken alliances and embolden rivals.
Marginalizing career experts results in a depletion of critical knowledge, language skills, and regional understanding, severely weakening the nation's ability to analyze nuanced situations and craft effective responses to complex global challenges, from climate change to cybersecurity. When policy appears to emanate from individual whims rather than a well-considered, institutionalized process, U.S. credibility on the global stage suffers, impacting its ability to lead coalitions, negotiate effectively, and promote its values. Both domestically and internationally, trust in the foreign policy establishment can erode if decisions are seen as arbitrary or lacking a sound analytical basis, making it harder to garner public and international support for crucial initiatives.
"The greatest danger isn't just about making bad decisions; it's about losing the systemic capacity to make good ones consistently," explained Dr. Marcus Thorne, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "When you remove the layers of review, expert input, and interagency coordination, you lose the crucial safety net that prevents catastrophic errors and ensures strategic continuity across administrations."
Dr. Thorne added,
"Allies look for predictability and a coherent strategy. When they see a system that can be easily swayed or bypassed by individual preferences, their willingness to align their own interests with ours diminishes, creating vacuums that other global powers are eager to fill. This ultimately compromises our national security interests and global leadership."A focus on short-term gains over long-term strategic planning, often a consequence of ad hoc decision-making, can leave the U.S. unprepared for emerging threats and opportunities, diminishing its proactive posture in favor of a reactive one.
Looking Forward
The debate over the deinstitutionalization of U.S. foreign policy making highlights a critical juncture for American global engagement. Rebuilding the systematic architecture of diplomacy and national security coordination is not merely about restoring past norms, but about adapting them to a rapidly changing world while ensuring the foundational strengths of expertise, coherence, and strategic foresight remain intact. The long-term efficacy and influence of U.S. foreign policy in addressing global challenges and maintaining its leadership role may well depend on whether these foundational pillars can be fully restored and reinforced against future challenges and political pressures.
