October 30, 2026
In recent public remarks to the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), Ambassador Nicholas Burns called for reviving “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) at the State Department. “I hope we go back to a more rational way of recognizing that diversity inclusion is a strengthening element in a government institution like the State Department,” he declared. Conspicuously absent was any acknowledgment of the damage that DEI inflicted on meritocracy in hiring, promotions, and assignments under the Biden administration.
Burns insists he rejects quotas and that the DEI program he oversaw at Mission China gave no group preferential treatment. In effect, he proposes a sanitized DEI 2.0—one supposedly free of preferences, quotas, and predetermined outcomes.
But this “DEI light” strains credibility. Simply honoring the rich and varied heritages that make up modern American society is hardly controversial. The real dispute concerns the radical equity agenda, and Burns knows it. Most Americans—and a growing body of federal court rulings—reject identity-based preferences and insist that individuals be judged on merit. It is the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. standard. We have plenty of diversity. Let’s have some unity.
Yet Burns sidesteps that central question. What does he say about the legacy of Secretary Antony Blinken’s extreme DEI agenda? Where is Ambassador Burns's equally forceful defense of meritocracy? Is AFSA that out of touch with where the American people stand on DEI?
Burns also invokes the principle of nonpartisanship, a familiar AFSA refrain. The Ben Franklin Fellowship shares that commitment. Career diplomats and civil servants must faithfully implement the policies of the elected president, regardless of party. Those unwilling to do so should honorably resign. Nobody has the right to stay and undermine administration policies.
Yet AFSA's claim to nonpartisanship rings hollow when it openly opposes central policies of the Trump administration. President Trump has ordered an end to DEI programs throughout the federal government. Burns nevertheless calls for their revival while presenting himself as a champion of nonpartisanship.
The contradiction extends beyond DEI. The current administration dismantled USAID; Burns advocates creating a new independent foreign assistance agency. AFSA and Burns are entitled to oppose administration policies. But they cannot plausibly portray that opposition as evidence of their nonpartisanship. Defending the career Foreign Service is one thing. Urging a reversal of the elected administration's policies is quite another.
