Alwaght- In the US diplomatic tradition, the ambassadors and special envoys have usually been picked from professional diplomats, international affairs experts, and veteran figures of the State Department. But since the beginning of his presidency, Trump challenged this tradition.
Just contrary to his predecessors who usually used experienced diomats of the State Department and security institutions to handle foreign cases, Trump has gone an unconventional path, choosing envoys from among the little-known figures, political loyalists, figures off the official circles, and even election campaign activists for sensitive posts.
Such figures as Thomas Barrack for Lebanon case, Steve Witkoff for negotiations with Iran, Mark Sawaya as special envoy for Iraq, naming a little-known and Muslim mayor of a town in Michigan as ambassador to Kuwait, and even naming Mauricio Claver-Carone as special envoy to Latin America are examples of these appointments. However, these appointments have prompted questions about political preferences, secret aims, and implications of these pickings in the US foreign policy.
Figures from outside the system: From the campaign to the embassy
A hallmark of Trump's foreign policy has been his appointment of former campaign activists and staunch political loyalists to key diplomatic positions.
Amer Ghalib, a little-known Muslim mayor from a small Michigan town, was nominated as US ambassador to Kuwait. He had been a supporter of Trump during the presidential campaign.
Mark Sawaya, who is of Iraqi origin, was appointed as a special representative for Iraqi affairs. A strong Trump supporter, he not only made financial contributions to Trump's presidential campaign in Michigan but also led extensive efforts to secure votes among American Muslims.
Morgan Ortagus and later Thomas Barrack were appointed as special envoys for Lebanon, despite neither having any significant prior diplomatic experience.
Richard Grenell and Steve Witkoff were at various times put in charge of the Iran nuclear case. Some of these individuals were better known as political or media figures than as career diplomats.
Political loyalty as Trumpism's central basis
The first, and perhaps most significant, interpretation of these appointments is the paramount importance of "personal loyalty" in Trump's intellectual worldview. Analysts believe that in these selections, Trump prioritizes political and personal allegiance far more than experience and expertise.
They say he carries a bitter experience from his first term, where some of his own appointees later turned against him, from leaking information to testifying before Congress. Consequently, Trump has arrived at a fundamental criterion for his inner circle: loyalty over credentials.
This loyalty is not just a political component but is central to the Trumpian political movement, Make America Great Again(MAGA). What some analysts refer to as the "Trump movement" is an organic network of media activists, local figures, religious leaders, immigrant supporters, and private investors that has coalesced around him. This network has granted him an identity independent of the traditional Republican Party.
His recent appointments are, in effect, a reward for active members of this network, a form of distributing political spoils to ensure long-term allegiance.
Furthermore, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a deep distrust for Washington's bureaucratic structures. His experiences with leaked diplomatic conversations, document disclosures, and institutional resistance to policies like rapprochement with Russia or distancing from NATO have convinced him that a "Deep State" in Washington works to neutralize the president's agenda. He prefers to work with individuals who report directly to him and offer greater flexibility in decision-making.
This dynamic is clearly visible in his dealings with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a well-known Republican figure. While Trump assigned Rubio the additional role of National Security Advisor after Michael Waltz's resignation last June, Rubio's role in key decision-making forums remains notably marginal.
American diplomatic institutions, particularly the State Department, possess a complex, hierarchical structure that can often slow or even block the implementation of policy. By appointing special envoys who report directly to him, Trump is attempting to bypass these traditional structures and streamline decision-making. Unlike career diplomats, these individuals are less bound by established protocols and are more prepared to execute the president's direct orders.
Another issue is that Trump believes that the US, to prevent demise of its global hegemony in the face of nascent rivals like China, needs to embark on a more offensive approach. He thinks that the State Department structure from decades ago has been under the influence of people of liberal leanings and a conservative technocrcy and these figures should be marginalized on the policy-making. A stark example is the Trump's renaming of the Department of Defense to Department of War, where Pete Hegseth arranged a meeting with top military generals and talked about end of what he described as the defensive identity of the US military.
Furthermore, Trump is aware that his victory in key swing states depended on the participation of minority voters. Support from segments of the Arab and Muslim American communities has seen a relative increase in recent years. Appointing young figures from these communities to diplomatic posts is advantageous for Trump from several angles: 1) strengthening his network of loyalists within minority groups, 2) sending a symbolic message to Gulf Arab nations, and 3) countering the image of an Islamophobe that the media often ascribes to him.
Therefore, analysts interpret the appointment of Ghalib as part of a broader strategy to mend his image among Muslim communities.
Implications of this approach: Opportunity or threat?
Trump's approach of appointing non-traditional figures carries multiple consequences for US foreign policy:
1. Erosion of institutional cohesion: Bypassing the State Department and specialized agencies can fragment foreign policy, sending contradictory messages to international partners.
2. Increased diplomatic risk: The lack of sufficient experience among special envoys could lead to flawed or ineffective decision-making when navigating complex international crises.
3. Heightened lobby influence: Some analysts argue these appointments aim to curry favor with specific lobbying groups, particularly the pro-Israel lobby. This could steer US foreign policy away from the national interest toward the interests of a specific faction. For instance, Sawaya's selection is widely seen as a gesture to the pro-Israel lobby, given his reported role in securing the release of Elizabeth Tsurkov, an Israeli-Russian researcher, from Iraqi militias.
4. Personalization of foreign policy: By centering personal relationships and loyalty, US foreign policy becomes increasingly tied to the individual will of the president, potentially undermining its stability and predictability.
Diplomacy serves Trumpism
Trump's approach in assigning loyal and untraditional figures to key foreign policy posts is a reflection of his political philosophy which rests on distrust in official institutions, focus on personal loyalty, and push for direct control of decision-making processes. Though this policy may in the short run lead to faster advancing of the plans, in the long run it can undermine diplomatic institutions, increase international risks, and hit the US's global credibility.
Finally, this approach is not only a reflection of Trump's leadership style, but also a sign of a deeper development in the US policy: A transition from institutional to personal diplomacy, from technocracy to loyalty, and from structure to character.
