NEWS & RESEARCH
In October 2026, The Washington Sun reported that the State Department had asked Foreign Service officers up for promotion for whom they voted in the 2016, 2020 and 2024 presidential elections. Top officials made clear that only candidates who had voted for Donald Trump would be eligible for mid-to-upper-level roles, and they warned that any campaign donation to a Democrat would be disqualifying. The questioning is part of a broader overhaul under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who added “fidelity” to the Foreign Service’s promotion criteria, grading officers in part on “protecting and promoting executive power.”
SOURCES: Washington Sun | The Hill | Raw Story
ANALYSIS & OPINION
Federal law bars the government from making Foreign Service personnel decisions based on political affiliation (22 U.S.C. § 3905), which the Civil Service Reform Act classifies as a “Prohibited Personnel Practice” (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(1)(E)), and the Supreme Court has held that tying promotions to party loyalty violates the First Amendment. Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who served as a senior State Department official, has argued that the party loyalty test also violates the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321–7326), which prohibits federal employees from using their positions to coerce political activity. These laws rest on a basic principle: While thousands of political appointees turn over with each administration, the vast majority of the federal workforce is made up of career staff meant to serve presidents of either party without political interference. Screening diplomats by their voting choices and donations erases that line, and lawmakers have taken notice. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said these “critical national security positions” should be filled based on “experience and ability, not their political loyalty,” while Rep. James Walkinshaw called the practice “flat out illegal” and warned that anyone involved “will be held accountable.” The damage is already visible in the department’s senior ranks. Career diplomats spend years, often decades, learning languages, building relationships with foreign officials and understanding regions in ways no political appointee can replicate overnight, and their candid assessments are what policymakers rely on to make sound decisions. When advancement depends on political allegiance rather than expertise, the most experienced officers leave, and those who stay learn that telling political appointees what they want to hear is safer than telling them the truth, leaving the country to make high-stakes foreign policy decisions based on unreliable information.
SOURCES: Washington Sun | The Hill | Raw Story
HOW TO FIX IT
Federal action:
Pass the Stop Sycophants in Government Act, which would bar any official from administering a political loyalty test to federal employees at any stage of employment, including promotion decisions. To make it airtight, Congress should define a loyalty test to include questions about how employees voted or to whom they donated, and add penalties for officials who break it.
Pass the State Department Integrity and Transparency Act, which would require that at least 75 percent of the State Department’s assistant secretaries come from the Senior Foreign Service or Senior Executive Service. Congress could also reintroduce and pass the STAND Act, which would require that at least 70 percent of ambassadorial appointments go to career Foreign Service and civil service members. Together, the two laws would guarantee that most of the department’s top posts are reserved for experienced professionals, so advancement would depend more on experience than political allegiance.
Rebuild the Foreign Service Grievance Board. In August 2026, the Justice Department declared that the independent appeals panel that hears workplace complaints from Foreign Service members can no longer issue final rulings, giving Rubio the power to overrule its decisions. Congress should amend the Foreign Service Act so board members are confirmed by the Senate, which would give their rulings final authority and end the secretary’s power to reverse them. Until then, any reversal should have to be explained in writing and be open to challenge in federal court. Otherwise, officers who challenge political screening will face a final ruling from the very department accused of it.
Pass the Bivens Act, which would let Americans sue federal officials for damages when they violate constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has held that basing promotions on party affiliation violates the First Amendment, so diplomats passed over because of how they voted could take the officials responsible to court rather than depend on a grievance board that Rubio can overrule. Personal liability would also make officials think twice before screening career staff by party.
File complaints with the Office of Special Counsel, the federal agency that enforces protections for government workers and can investigate political screening as a Prohibited Personnel Practice. Officers who were asked about their votes or donations can report the officials who questioned them, and lawmakers and watchdog groups can formally request that the office investigate the practice and identify who was involved. Even if the current special counsel declines to act, the matter may be appealed ot he Merit System Protection Board and the complaints create an official record that Congress could act on.
Litigation:
Challenge the political screening in court. The American Foreign Service Association could sue over the practice of asking officers about their votes and donations, bringing First Amendment claims, since the Supreme Court held in Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois that basing promotions on political affiliation is unconstitutional. Federal workers usually must take complaints through internal channels first, but challenging a policy rather than individual promotion decisions can go straight to federal court.
Challenge the secretary’s power to overrule the Grievance Board in court. The American Foreign Service Association—the Foreign Service’s union—has said it is weighing legal action against the Justice Department’s opinion stripping the board of final authority. A ruling restoring that authority would give officers questioned about their political affiliation a place to file complaints that the Secretary of State couldn’t override.
Legislation: S. 2816 - Stop Sycophants in Government Act of 2025 | S. 4719 - State Department Integrity and Transparency Act | H.R. 4921 - STAND Act | H.R. 6091 - Bivens Act of 2025
