There are many ways to judge a country’s diplomatic service, but a solid one is this question: are you representative of the people? After President Trump’s latest executive order blitz, the future of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in U.S. diplomacy hangs in the balance. 

On Monday, Trump signed an order to dismantle “illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ mandates,” targeting policies and programs embedded across the Federal Government. He didn’t stop there. Another sweeping order unraveled decades of progress, gutting Clinton-era environmental justice initiatives and overturning Johnson’s nondiscriminatory hiring policies. The message is clear: inclusion, in all its forms, is no longer a priority.

For students looking to enter a rapidly changing global landscape, the question looms large: what happens when the government cuts diversity from diplomacy?

At Stanford, we occupy a niche space within this evolving diplomatic landscape. A classmate might even prototype an AI-generated foreign ministry spokesperson—only to learn Ukraine’s foreign ministry beat them to it last spring. Here, amidst a hum of being on the edge of precipices, the same restless energy driving breakthroughs in tech shapes the diplomatic world. It’s a space for the bold, the passionate and propulsive. We are told we will shape the world. 

That the State Department has long been filled with “pale, male and Yale” diplomats, as the common refrain goes, is well established. Nearly 80% of foreign service officers identify as White. The Foreign Service was more diverse in 1986 than it is now, according to Eric Rubin, president of the American Foreign Service Association. What’s new is Elon Musk’s proposed $120 billion cuts to federal diversity programs amid furious uproar that “DEI must DIE”. Trump’s actions whitewash an already exclusionary system. 

In 2023, Marco Rubio co-authored a report, “Diversity Over Diplomacy’—How Wokeness is Weakening the U.S. State Department,” further fueling debate over the value of D.E.I. in diplomacy. The resulting outrage, in a word, is absurd. It’s also demanding, pushing diplomacy itself to turn inwards and consider a fundamental misunderstanding: D.E.I programs do not exclude merit. They address the exclusion of marginalized groups from fields like the Foreign Service. 

Not that I haven’t thought about this for a very long time. As a child in Los Angeles, I heard stories of my father’s escape from killing fields in Cambodia and it framed my study of international relations; as an adult, I visited my mom’s hometown in China amidst growing calls to decouple from the country’s growing influence. The specter of identity looms everywhere: the sports arena, the classroom and the jazz performances of the 1960s; diplomacy, as a spread of soft power, is hollow without meaningful representation. 

There’s an unease I can’t shake—a sea of indifferent faces, wearing crisp suits at a podium, telling the world what’s best for the country that my family calls home. It’s not a question of qualifications. There are countless people, each bringing the richness of their personal histories, who could step into the Foreign Service and lead with understanding, empathy, and authenticity. But they don’t. Not because they can’t — but because something deeper, something systemic, keeps the gates closed. It’s a quiet exclusion, a barrier that whispers, “This space isn’t for you.”

And then came Trump, delivering a blow that wasn’t quiet at all. A blow that reinforced these barriers, solidified them, and left a system even less accessible than before. The damage is real, and so is the question: why are those who understand these places and people not allowed to lead?

In diplomacy, meaningful representation shapes the world’s vision of America. At times, it seems like lofty exhortations that DEI will “be a voice for the people” and “heal the world” have become platitudes, empty rhetoric without any firm ideas about how that might be accomplished. Often in diplomacy people ask for the negotiation of peace; true impact essentializes the importance of creating the conditions for peace—and that involves commitment to education and equality. 

“Diplomacy is about bringing together people with different ideas, backgrounds, and guidance to find solutions we can all live with,” UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told AP News. Without DEI, she argued, the collaborative essence of diplomacy is under threat. 

It may be cliché, but it’s still profound: meaningful diversity lies in thought (rather than just appearance). DEI initiatives and education contribute immensely to human rights worldwide and this, in turn, can help prevent violence—a crucial point to bear in mind in 2025 when diplomatic mediation and negotiations will be paramount.