The State Department has reportedly begun asking career diplomats applying for senior assignments about their voting history in the past three presidential elections, a move that has triggered alarm among current and former officials concerned about politicization of the foreign service.
According to the Washington Sun, candidates who voted for President Trump would be eligible for mid- to upper-level foreign service positions, with campaign donations also under scrutiny. This comes as the Trump administration has pushed to reshape the diplomatic corps, prioritizing loyalty over traditional merit-based advancement.
Federal law explicitly prohibits discrimination against federal employees based on political affiliation. A State Department spokesperson dismissed the report, calling it an “absurd premise” that political affiliation is being considered in promotions. The spokesperson emphasized that the administration “will prioritize merit rather than giving out leadership positions based on the number of years individuals have been at the Department.”
When asked about the nature of questions posed to foreign service and civil service officers, the spokesperson clarified that inquiries about “fidelity” are meant to ensure officers uphold the Constitution and execute policy “with loyalty to the American people and their interests,” not to assess partisan behavior. The department has incorporated a “fidelity” component into performance evaluations since July 2025, linking to a White House page listing Trump’s executive orders.
The American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), the union representing foreign service officers, has received reports of senior officers being denied positions after interviews that included politically charged questions. AFSA has stated that such questioning “has no place in the federal service” and is exploring legal options.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), outgoing ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the committee has been monitoring whether political affiliation is becoming a factor in employment decisions. “These are critical national security positions and individuals should be chosen for their experience and ability, not their political loyalty,” she said, adding that the committee is working with the House to investigate all such claims.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, called the practice “flat out illegal” and warned that those involved “will be held accountable.”
The controversy is part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration’s reorganization of the State Department, which has included the layoffs of approximately 1,100 civil service and 250 foreign service officers. Critics argue these moves are designed to replace nonpartisan career staff with political loyalists, a concern echoed by former diplomats. Aaron David Miller, a veteran diplomat, said the report is “just confirmation that State – like DOJ – has become an instrument of Administration politics goals/preferences.” Former Ambassador Daniel Fried called partisanship testing “(a) dumb and (b) illegal.”
The administration’s actions have also led to a surge in retirements among senior career staff, as political appointees fill ambassadorships and other high-level posts. Democrats have denounced the elimination of USAID and its 16,000 staff as further evidence of dismissing foreign policy expertise for political aims. The State Department’s spokesperson reiterated that the administration is focused on executing the president’s vision, but critics maintain that such practices undermine the professionalism and neutrality of the foreign service.
