The United States has been in an active war with Iran for over a month, yet the State Department's most visible response has been a new dress code for its diplomats. This isn't just a trivial distraction—it's a symptom of a deeper crisis within the institution, argues John Dinkelman, president of the American Foreign Service Association.
At a moment when the U.S. needs a diplomatic corps built for crisis, the department is signaling that appearance is getting attention that capability is not. The dress code didn't emerge in isolation; it followed a series of sweeping changes to how the Foreign Service recruits and evaluates its personnel.
The department recently restarted hiring after months of disruption, which is necessary. The Foreign Service has lost more than 20 percent of its workforce since January 2025. But how that rebuilding happens matters just as much as whether it happens at all. One alarming change: the removal of an assessment tool that helped identify candidates with hard-to-replace skills, including real-world international experience and critical languages like Chinese, Arabic, and Farsi. There has been no clear explanation for why it was cut, and given current global tensions, the decision is difficult to defend.
The administration argues it wants diplomats accountable to American interests, not to a professional foreign policy establishment it views with suspicion. But if the goal is to advance American interests in Iran, across the Gulf, and globally, we need diplomats who understand those regions, speak those languages, and have spent years developing judgment under pressure. Dinkelman warns that the real risk isn't that ideology once influenced the system—it is that it will now.
“America First” should entail a Foreign Service built for effectiveness, he says. Instead, what's taking shape looks increasingly like a system that rewards compliance. Experienced officers with decades of regional knowledge and crisis experience have left or been pushed out. Key pipelines have been weakened: the Diplomats in Residence program at key universities has been shut down, and the Pickering and Rangel fellowships—longstanding entry points for top-tier, diverse talent—have been disrupted. Reductions in force have hollowed out Middle East expertise during an active conflict.
Meanwhile, vital regional embassies—including in Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—are operating without Senate-confirmed ambassadors. In each case, there isn't even a nominee pending, meaning no high-level U.S. representation for months to come. Confirmed ambassadors bring authority and relationships that acting officials cannot fully replicate, particularly during a crisis.
The pattern extends beyond staffing. When former ambassadors, career diplomats who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations, raised concerns about American safety during evacuations from the conflict, a senior State Department official responded with a personal attack. These individuals have firsthand experience managing evacuations and navigating crises like this one. If they are dismissed when they speak up, the message to those still serving is clear: stay quiet. Oversight depends on people being willing to surface problems.
The dress code fits into this broader pattern. Policies like this are rarely just about clothing. When written loosely—and this one is—they are often applied unevenly, with disproportionate impact on women and underrepresented groups. That may not be intentional, but it results from a policy that was never fully vetted.
Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee should press for answers: How will the new hiring system be protected from political interference? What is the plan to fill ambassadorial vacancies in active conflict zones? And what is being done to bring back experienced officers whose skills are urgently needed? These are questions that get to whether the United States has the diplomatic capacity this moment demands. China does. Shouldn't we?
The State Department can tell its diplomats what to wear. It cannot obscure what is happening to the institution they serve.
