State Department Adds 'America First' Curriculum to Foreign Service Orientation

State Department announces changes to foreign service test and adds "America First" curriculum to orientation, eliminating diversity questions.

Objective Facts

The US State Department on Wednesday announced a series of changes to the US foreign service test with a specific focus on eliminating alleged "diversity, equity, and inclusion" as the Trump administration attempts to reshape the diplomatic corps. The foreign service onboarding program, A100, has been "transformed" with Foreign Service Officers to receive substantive content on policy and tradecraft, which includes lectures on diplomatic history and America First foreign policy. The State Department is stripping back its recruitment process, ditching controversial resilience exercises and diversity-focused testing in favor of a rigorous, history-heavy curriculum designed to toughen the nation's diplomatic corps. The recruitment effort comes after the department fired nearly 250 foreign service officers last year and drove out scores of other experienced diplomats, including ambassadors. Applicants will be tested on American history, foreign policy concepts, and logical reasoning, while questions intended to test alignment with ideological agendas have been eliminated.

Left-Leaning Perspective

The American Foreign Service Association notes that today's State Department announcement raises serious concerns, saying the first problem is framing—the announcement suggests that rigorous training in American history, diplomacy, and negotiation is new, but it is not. Critics question: Will officers receive a broad grounding in American foreign policy, or will their curriculum be shaped by ideological concerns? For the Foreign Service, the most consequential effect of the reforms may be the shrinking space for professional neutrality, with the 2026 update adding a doctrinal component that effectively transforms the exam and orientation into soft loyalty tests, as the A-100 curriculum emphasizes a canon linked to Trump-era thinking. Diplomats may find it harder to navigate the space between representing the administration's preferences and upholding broader U.S. interests that include human rights, rule-of-law commitments, and multilateral cooperation, with dissenting perspectives—especially those that emphasize human rights or international norms—potentially being quietly marginalized. The American Foreign Service Association president states "You're scrambling to try to rebuild a diplomatic corps, which, frankly, is going to be a bunch of new entry-level officers who are easily malleable into the ways that you want them to go, at the expense of having had some strong veterans." The elimination of the Qualifications Evaluation Panel, dismissed without explanation, removes a process that brought demonstrable value to the Foreign Service by helping identify candidates with critical language skills, such as Chinese, Arabic, and Farsi.

Right-Leaning Perspective

Conservative outlets frame the changes as eliminating "woke ideology" and emphasizing merit—replacing soft-skill workshops such as a 90-minute activity where participants threw objects into buckets while blindfolded to build "team resilience" with rigorous academic content on "America First" foreign policy and grand strategy. The reforms aim to cut trivial team-building exercises and create a diplomatic corps better equipped for 21st-century challenges and to promote talent based on merit. State Department deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott states: "The Trump administration is modernizing the Foreign Service to prepare America's diplomats to advocate for our national interest on a dynamically changing world stage." New recruits will now study "America First" foreign policy, grand strategy, and commercial diplomacy. The State Department announced the changes reflect modernization efforts to meet "the challenges of the 21st century." The State Department is reducing barriers to leadership and management roles by emphasizing merit in the selection process so that officers who excel can have opportunities for leadership earlier in their careers, ensuring that promising officers stay in government service.

Deep Dive

The April 2, 2026 announcement represents the latest stage of Trump administration restructuring of the State Department's personnel system, building on changes initiated in 2025. The underlying disagreement is not primarily factual—both sides acknowledge the curriculum now emphasizes American history, diplomatic theory, and administration foreign policy priorities—but rather about the nature and consequences of that emphasis. From a structural standpoint, the right has a defensible argument: major agencies routinely realign training to reflect the sitting administration's priorities, and eliminating poorly-designed "team resilience" exercises in favor of substantive skill training (negotiation, public speaking, language preparation) is legitimate modernization. Merit-based selection for a federal agency should center professional competence. The reference texts—Washington, Adams, Monroe, Kennan, Huntington—are serious works in diplomatic history and grand strategy, not propaganda. However, critics identify a real vulnerability in the design: the simultaneous removal of DEI questions, insertion of explicitly "America First" doctrine into mandatory curriculum, and context of 20 percent staff reductions create a credible appearance that the reform is selecting for ideological alignment rather than pure professional merit. The fact that the State Department has not provided examples of the questions it deemed problematic, instead relying on the Daily Caller's characterizations, leaves a transparency gap. Moreover, elimination of the Qualifications Evaluation Panel removes a process designed to identify critical language capabilities—a genuine professional need independent of ideology—without clear justification. The unresolved tension is whether teaching "America First" foreign policy principles to incoming diplomats is equivalent to teaching U.S. foreign policy doctrine (legitimate) or imposing political ideology (problematic). This distinction may become clearer once the A-100 curriculum is published in detail and the first cohorts of newly trained officers are deployed. The long-term impact will depend on whether future administrations maintain this framework or whether, as AFSA suggests, it represents a break with the Foreign Service's traditional nonpartisan character.

OBJ SPEAKING

← Daily BriefAbout

State Department Adds 'America First' Curriculum to Foreign Service Orientation

State Department announces changes to foreign service test and adds "America First" curriculum to orientation, eliminating diversity questions.

Apr 2, 2026· Updated Apr 5, 2026
What's Going On

The US State Department on Wednesday announced a series of changes to the US foreign service test with a specific focus on eliminating alleged "diversity, equity, and inclusion" as the Trump administration attempts to reshape the diplomatic corps. The foreign service onboarding program, A100, has been "transformed" with Foreign Service Officers to receive substantive content on policy and tradecraft, which includes lectures on diplomatic history and America First foreign policy. The State Department is stripping back its recruitment process, ditching controversial resilience exercises and diversity-focused testing in favor of a rigorous, history-heavy curriculum designed to toughen the nation's diplomatic corps. The recruitment effort comes after the department fired nearly 250 foreign service officers last year and drove out scores of other experienced diplomats, including ambassadors. Applicants will be tested on American history, foreign policy concepts, and logical reasoning, while questions intended to test alignment with ideological agendas have been eliminated.

Left says: The announcement has sparked concern about the possible politicization of personnel who serve as the face of the United States overseas. Critics say "it is not normal to inject what are so blatantly administration-specific agenda items into orientation."
Right says: The State Department is stripping back its recruitment process in favor of a rigorous, history-heavy curriculum designed to toughen the nation's diplomatic corps to prepare a new generation of officers for the "strategic competition" of the 21st century. Secretary Marco Rubio's State Department announces sweeping reforms to eliminate woke ideology and globalist mindset from America's diplomatic corps.
✓ Common Ground
AFSA supports the "overdue resumption of Foreign Service recruitment as a critical step toward rebuilding a workforce that has lost more than 20 percent of its ranks since January 2025." Both sides acknowledge the need to rebuild the diplomatic corps after significant personnel losses.
Both sides agree the department should eliminate exercises that "purported to teach communication skills and 'team resilience,'" such as a "90-minute activity that required participants to throw objects into a bucket while blindfolded."
Several observers across the ideological spectrum recognize that training on core foreign service skills—including public speaking, negotiation, diplomacy, and American history—are legitimate components of professional orientation for federal diplomats.
There is shared recognition that the US diplomatic corps has historically had the reputation of being "pale, male, and Yale," referencing a largely White, male, and Ivy League educated group, indicating agreement that merit-based selection matters, though disagreement exists on how to achieve it.
Objective Deep Dive

The April 2, 2026 announcement represents the latest stage of Trump administration restructuring of the State Department's personnel system, building on changes initiated in 2025. The underlying disagreement is not primarily factual—both sides acknowledge the curriculum now emphasizes American history, diplomatic theory, and administration foreign policy priorities—but rather about the nature and consequences of that emphasis.

From a structural standpoint, the right has a defensible argument: major agencies routinely realign training to reflect the sitting administration's priorities, and eliminating poorly-designed "team resilience" exercises in favor of substantive skill training (negotiation, public speaking, language preparation) is legitimate modernization. Merit-based selection for a federal agency should center professional competence. The reference texts—Washington, Adams, Monroe, Kennan, Huntington—are serious works in diplomatic history and grand strategy, not propaganda.

However, critics identify a real vulnerability in the design: the simultaneous removal of DEI questions, insertion of explicitly "America First" doctrine into mandatory curriculum, and context of 20 percent staff reductions create a credible appearance that the reform is selecting for ideological alignment rather than pure professional merit. The fact that the State Department has not provided examples of the questions it deemed problematic, instead relying on the Daily Caller's characterizations, leaves a transparency gap. Moreover, elimination of the Qualifications Evaluation Panel removes a process designed to identify critical language capabilities—a genuine professional need independent of ideology—without clear justification.

The unresolved tension is whether teaching "America First" foreign policy principles to incoming diplomats is equivalent to teaching U.S. foreign policy doctrine (legitimate) or imposing political ideology (problematic). This distinction may become clearer once the A-100 curriculum is published in detail and the first cohorts of newly trained officers are deployed. The long-term impact will depend on whether future administrations maintain this framework or whether, as AFSA suggests, it represents a break with the Foreign Service's traditional nonpartisan character.

◈ Tone Comparison

Left-leaning coverage uses language signaling alarm—"politicization," "soft loyalty tests," "easily malleable," and questions about whether goals are to produce "well-rounded diplomats or narrow ideologues." Right-leaning outlets employ affirmative framing: "modernization," "merit-based," "rigorous," emphasizing the elimination of what they characterize as wasteful activities. Both sides recognize the same facts but assign opposite valuations: critics see ideological capture; supporters see professional streamlining.

✕ Key Disagreements
Whether the curriculum changes represent legitimate professionalization or ideological politicization
Left: Critics question whether officers will receive a broad grounding in American foreign policy, or if their curriculum will be shaped by ideological concerns. The 2026 update adds a doctrinal component that effectively transforms the exam into soft loyalty tests, with diplomatic competence implicitly tied to ideological alignment.
Right: The Trump administration states it is "modernizing the Foreign Service to prepare America's diplomats to advocate for our national interest" with training in "crucial skills like public speaking and negotiation and engagement with international relations theory on topics ranging from commercial diplomacy to grand strategy."
The appropriateness of centering "America First" foreign policy doctrine in orientation
Left: An A100 instructor for more than five years stated "it is not normal to inject what are so blatantly administration-specific agenda items into orientation." As the A-100 curriculum emphasizes a canon linked to Trump-era thinking, candidates are being conditioned to internalize an "America First" understanding of diplomacy before they even arrive at overseas posts.
Right: The State Department indicates that lectures on "diplomatic history and America First foreign policy" along with readings from George Washington, John Quincy Adams, James Monroe, the Federalist Papers, and works from George Kennan, Angelo Codevilla, and Samuel Huntington constitute substantive, rigorous professional training aligned with clear national priorities.
Impact on professional independence and institutional credibility
Left: The changes send a message: "Even perfect compliance offers no protection. Rules change without warning. Merit matters only when convenient." There is concern the service will increasingly function as an extension of the executive's partisan agenda rather than as a stable, nonpartisan institution, with internal diversity of viewpoints potentially eroding over time.
Right: The reforms emphasize merit in the selection process so promising officers can reach leadership roles earlier and stay in government service in rewarding, high-impact roles. Secretary Rubio's main priority is to have a Department of State that puts America First.
Whether removed test questions actually represented DEI ideology or legitimate professional assessment
Left: Removed questions about the number of an applicant's immediate friends that "have a first language other than English" and socialization with diverse groups could be expected on past exams, with the US diplomatic corps historically having the reputation of being "pale, male, and Yale." Such questions may have served to assess candidate awareness and comfort with diversity.
Right: Under the new guidance, the exam is revised to emphasize "merit in the selection process" by eliminating questions "intended to test alignment with the diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda." The State Department maintains these questions tested ideological alignment rather than professional fitness.