Section 2.3: Department of State
“There are scores of fine diplomats who serve the President’s agenda, often helping to shape and interpret that agenda. At the same time, however, in all Administrations, there is a tug-of-war between Presidents and bureaucracies – and that resistance is much starker under conservative Presidents, due largely to the fact that large swaths of the State Department’s workforce are left-wing and predisposed to disagree with a conservative President’s policy agenda and vision.”
So begins this section – more arguments for staffing the federal government with loyalists to the President rather than experts in their fields.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“As the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (the Hart–Rudman Commission) observed more than 20 years ago, the State Department is a “crippled institution” suffering from “an ineffective organizational structure in which regional and functional policies do not serve integrated goals, and in which sound management, accountability, and leadership are lacking.” Unfortunately, this critique remains accurate.”
You can learn more about the Hart-Rudman commission here. In a nutshell, it’s a pretty obvious pre-amble/supplement to the Project 2025 agenda (it was written in 1998.)
The basis of Skinner’s argument stems from this: The State Department has been described as having a strong institutional culture, with many career diplomats who view their mission as representing the U.S. to the world based on longstanding diplomatic norms, not just the agenda of the sitting administration.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“Notwithstanding the challenges and slowness of the modern U.S. Senate confirmation process, the next President can exert leverage on the Senate if he or she is willing to place State Department appointees directly into those roles, pending confirmation.”
The president has the authority to place individuals in key roles as “acting” officials while they await Senate confirmation, in order not to leave important roles vacant for too long. These appointees can begin performing their duties immediately, even though they haven’t been confirmed by the Senate. By doing this, the president can bypass delays in the confirmation process to ensure that leadership positions in the State Department are filled with people loyal to the administration’s agenda. This puts pressure on the Senate to act, because if appointees are already in the role, the Senate may feel compelled to either confirm them or block them through a formal vote sooner, and may even be reluctant to oust someone who is already serving. Skinner is arguing that this practice should be the norm.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“To the extent possible, all non-confirmed senior appointees should be selected by the President-elect’s transition team or the new President’s Office of Presidential Personnel (depending on the timing of selection) and be in place the first day of the Administration. No one in a leadership position on the morning of January 20 should hold that position at the end of the day.”
Guess who would be selecting the “Day 1” staff she describes here?
If Trump wins this time around, he’s tapped RFK, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard to head up his transition team – an outspoken anti-vaxxer and serial abuser of animal corpses who has publicly admitted to sexually assaulting his children’s babysitters, and a woman who is a (perhaps unwitting) Russian propagandist whose campaign has taken money from Russian assets and who was literally brought up in a cult. Seriously, RFK Jr. once decapitated a whale, and doesn’t think that’s a weird story to tell people.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“Reboot Ambassadors Worldwide. All ambassadors are required to submit letters of resignation at the start of a new Administration.”
She goes on to say that the next administration should review all career ambassadors “well before the first day”, and reinstate those who are loyalists to the President.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“Ambassadors in countries where U.S. policy or posture would substantially change under the new Administration, as well as any who have evinced hostility toward the incoming Administration or its agenda, should be recalled immediately.”
Yet more arguments for staffing the State Department with loyalists to the President.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“Political ambassadors with strong personal relationships with the President should be prioritized for key strategic posts such as Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).”
Yet more arguments for staffing the State Department with loyalists to the President.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“[The next President] should direct the Secretary of State to freeze any ongoing treaty or international agreement negotiations and assess whether those efforts align with the new President’s foreign policy direction.”
This is a horrible and dangerous idea – unilaterally freezing agreements and treaties while they’re “evaluated” is going back on our word as a country. Foreign governments would almost certainly view a sudden freeze in treaty negotiations as a sign of unpredictability and unreliability in U.S. foreign policy. This would erode trust and harm diplomatic relationships, especially with allies or partners who may have spent years negotiating these agreements. Freezing negotiations on arms control, defense cooperation, or counterterrorism agreements could delay critical measures needed for global security, potentially leaving the U.S. or its allies more vulnerable to threats.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“The United States should strictly enforce the doctrine of reciprocity when issuing visas to all foreign nationals.”
The doctrine of reciprocity means that the visa policies applied to foreign nationals entering the U.S. would mirror the policies those foreign nations apply to U.S. citizens. If a country imposes strict visa requirements on Americans, the U.S. would respond by imposing similar restrictions on citizens of that country. This promotes diplomatic leverage, and in a perfect world, could result in better treatment of Americans traveling abroad while they’re in those countries, assuming we’ve agreed to treat visitors from that particular country well while they’re guests of the United States.
In reality, however, some countries would automatically be excluded due to their policies, making enforced reciprocity a means of legally discriminating against foreign visitors from those countries. Israel’s border policy15 is one such example.
The GOP backed off from its allegiance to reciprocity after WW2, once it was widely recognized that their high tariff policies had worsened the Great Depression17 and sparked trade wars18. Now they’re revisiting these misguided and harmful policies even though history has foretold the results.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.
“The federal government’s obligation to shift national security–essential screening and vetting resources to the forged border crisis will necessitate an indefinite curtailment of the number of USRAP refugee admissions.”
It’s interesting that Skinner would use the word “forged” here, which can also mean “counterfeit.” It’s almost a Freudian slip. The “border crisis” is indeed a manufactured talking point by Republicans. Trump even blew up a bipartisan border control measure in January because he wanted to continue to campaign on the issue, and resolving the problem would “look too good” for Democrats, since they’re the ones in office currently. It follows logically that since it can wait until Trump is in office to do anything about it, the border must not be as big an issue as they’re claiming it is. Biden later used executive action in June to drastically tighten the border.
So it would seem that Skinner’s recommendation here is simply a means of permanently denying refugees entry to the United States. Even citizens of El Paso, Texas say that there is no “border crisis”, and that the militarization of the border, not immigration, is what’s making their communities unsafe.
Full contextual analysis of Section 2.3: Department of State here.