The Not-So-Secret Society Whose Members Run State
If you want to know who's running the State Department these days, it helps to peruse the website of a relatively new, conservative-leaning organization called the Ben Franklin Fellowship.
The group's roster includes Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau, top officials in bureaus such as consular affairs, and even an acting undersecretary or two. The fellows include current and former members of the foreign service, as well as other international affairs specialists. And while the Fellowship describes itself as nonpartisan, its right-of-center views are obvious: It emphasizes goals such as border security; opposes typical diversity, equity and inclusion practices; and advocates for the careful use of U.S. resources abroad.
I have had a number of conversations with founders of the Fellowship, and they clearly cast it as a refuge for a group they believe is marginalized in U.S. diplomacy.
'It is a network of people who are not progressive and who have felt as though they've not had a forum like so many others in the State Department over the decades,' said Matthew Boyse, a Fellowship founder and a former foreign service officer.
But many career U.S. diplomats are suspicious of the organization.
They warned me that it could politicize a foreign service that is supposed to be nonpartisan and undermine policymaking by promoting MAGA-infused ideology over facts. Some worry that joining the Fellowship is an unofficial requirement to get ahead in their careers under President Donald Trump, and that its anti-DEI message will hurt women and minorities in a State Department historically dominated by white men. Some also question the qualifications of Fellowship members who have gotten plum assignments.
The Fellowship 'seems like a thinly veiled MAGA loyalist roster — like, sign up and you'll be 'one of the good ones,'' said one State Department staffer, who, like others, I granted anonymity because they didn't want to get fired for talking to a reporter.
I'll be frank: I wasn't that interested in writing about the Fellowship when I first heard about it months ago. My initial view was: So what if a bunch of right-leaning diplomats link up?
It's hardly the only group to cater to national security types across the political spectrum — from the left-leaning Truman National Security Project to the right-leaning Hudson Institute. Freedom of association is still a thing, even for diplomats who, regardless of their personal views, are expected to implement the policies of whoever is president.
But I soon concluded that the Fellowship is distinct in its heavy focus on reforming the State Department itself. It is intent on getting people with very specific views into the department, an approach that could affect U.S. foreign policy decades into the future.
And I simply couldn't ignore the Fellowship after May 2.
That was the day the State Department held its annual Foreign Affairs Day celebration. The event came amid anxiety at State over a reorganization plan that threatens many jobs and Trump's destruction of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Several key speakers were Ben Franklin Fellows. And things got … awkward.
The speakers included Lew Olowski, State's acting human resources chief, who touted the Fellowship in his remarks. Olowski's appointment has been derided by diplomats who argue he is too junior and not qualified for the job.
Then there was Phillip Linderman. He's a retired diplomat and another Fellowship founder, and he was given a major prize, the Foreign Service Directors General's Cup. At one point, Linderman told the audience he was accepting the award on behalf of 'overlooked' foreign service officers who had 'been intentionally passed over for promotion and assignments abroad' due to 'extreme' DEI policies.
Some audience members walked out at this point. Many watching online reached out to me, aghast at Linderman's comments, which they said implied women and minorities who received promotions hadn't deserved them.
Also speaking was Landau, the deputy secretary of State. He repeatedly raised the concept of respect and said he was disappointed by the earlier walkouts. But his remarks drew heckles from some audience members who asked why the Trump administration was disrespecting U.S.-allied nations and employees of USAID. Such interruptions were a shocking breach of decorum for an audience of diplomats.
In subsequent interviews with the Fellowship's founders — Boyse, Linderman and Simon Hankinson — I've tried to figure out what drives the Fellowship and how much power it truly wields.
The answer is, like so much of the world right now, murky.
The Fellowship's founders insist they are not trying to inject partisan politics into U.S. diplomacy and that the last thing they want is to create a right-wing 'deep state' inside the government.
'We very much believe in the constitutional order, which is that the federal bureaucracy works for the president, and it doesn't have a policy interest, a legitimate policy interest, outside of what the president wants to do,' Linderman told me.
But the Fellowship's leaders argue conservative views are barely represented within the foreign service, which undermines policy debates. So while suspicious diplomats worry the Fellowship will skew policy debates toward one ideology, the Fellowship's leaders say the debates are already unhealthily skewed toward another.
Both Hankinson and Linderman said they'd separately thought of setting up a network of conservative diplomats years ago, but Linderman did much of the early legwork that eventually led to the Fellowship. Boyse connected the two men.
At State, there have long been different kinds of employee associations. They include 'affinity groups' that link people of different faith, ethnic and other backgrounds, including military veterans. Many on the right saw such groups as vehicles for progressive ideas. The current Trump administration has effectively disbanded many such groups on grounds that they promote gender and racial ideology.
For a variety of often logistical reasons, Boyse, Hankinson and Linderman chose to create the Fellowship as an independent nonprofit outside the State Department. That choice also gives the group a bit more freedom than being under State's auspices.
Linderman told me he was especially motivated to create the Fellowship, which was up and running by last year, during the Joe Biden presidency.
That administration, he said, radicalized the State Department leftward, especially in its promotion of DEI policies and, in his view, a lax treatment of migration. (Linderman is affiliated with the Center for Immigration Studies, which wants to restrict immigration.)
When I pressed Linderman about his comments at the award ceremony, he pointed to the Fellowship's roster, which includes women and minorities. These fellows believe in the group's principles and resent being thought of as 'DEI hires,' he said. He and the other founders stress that they don't oppose diversity in general but that it's unfair for a person's immutable characteristics to be given more weight than another's accomplishments in, say, promotions.
Linderman also told me he was surprised to receive the award but was told — he wouldn't say by whom — that his work on the Fellowship affected his selection.
Despite diplomats' suspicions, I couldn't find proof that the Fellowship is outright directing State Department policy or personnel decisions — at least not as an organization.
U.S. diplomats in multiple time zones told me they'd not seen formal, written State communications that mentioned the group. A senior State official familiar with the situation also said he's not heard the group mentioned by top officials as a must-consult entity.
But these are early days, and the Fellowship is taking actions designed to seed long-term conservative influence in the diplomatic ranks. Even if creating a conservative 'deep state' is not a formal goal of the Fellowship's founders, a future Democratic president may find a foreign service that's far less amenable to their goals.
The State Department would not directly answer my questions about the Fellowship's role, including whether a person's affiliation with the group affects personnel decisions. But it sent me a statement that said Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his team 'value the insights, ideas, and leadership provided by members of the Ben Franklin Fellowship. We're grateful for their service to our country.'
The Fellowship's founders said there have been one-on-one talks between top State officials and individuals in their group at various settings, but they described that as typical Washington networking. And fellows such as Landau and Olowski, for instance, are likely to have significant influence over hiring given their official positions at State.
Hankinson, who also spent years in the foreign service, said the overlap between the group's Fellows and the State staffing chart comes down to math. The pool of current and former U.S. diplomats known to have views that match Trump's is small.
'One of our primary goals is to serve as a network to connect career diplomats and other foreign policy professionals who share the same values — including openly advocating for the U.S. national interest in foreign affairs,' Hankinson said. He added that if a Democratic administration sought Fellowship members' suggestions for hires, they'd offer them ideas, too. 'I suspect that won't happen,' he chuckled.
I pointed out that Olowski is much less experienced than past diplomats who've overseen human resources at State. How is that a merit-based promotion?
But Hankinson noted that Olowski had the role on an acting basis and argued that he had a solid résumé. Hankinson also said many political appointees under other administrations were underqualified for their roles. The Fellowship's concerns about putting merit over DEI are centered more on the career foreign service, not political appointees. (Olowski did not respond to my request for comment; neither did Landau.)
The Fellowship has largely been funded out of its founders' pockets, but it is seeking grants and accepting donations, Hankinson said. One superficial but potentially tricky challenge it will face is differentiating itself from multiple other programs named after Franklin, who is considered America's first diplomat. (That's one reason the group uses 'Ben' instead of 'Benjamin' in its name.)
The organization has multiple levels of affiliation, including fellows, members and people who are on the mailing list. Becoming a fellow or a member involves vetting to ensure the applicant agrees with the basic principles of the group, Hankinson said.
At the moment, he added, 'we're seeing a lot of interest.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard University amid national security concerns
President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a proclamation to student visas for foreigners seeking to study or participate in exchange programs at Harvard University, the move in the ongoing feud between the White House and the Ivy League school. The proclamation directs the State Department to "consider revoking" existing academic or exchange visas of any current Harvard students who meet certain criteria. "Admission into the United States to attend, conduct research, or teach at our Nation's institutions of higher education is a privilege granted by our Government, not a guarantee," Trump said. "That privilege is necessarily tied to the host institution's compliance and commitment to following Federal law. Harvard University has failed in this respect, among many others." The proclamation doesn't apply to foreign nationals attending other universities' Student Exchange Visa Program (SEVP) and exempts others whose entry is deemed in the national interest. Last month, the State Department said that it would begin scrutinizing all visa holders associated with Harvard University, not just student visa holders. The investigation is aimed at identifying potential security vulnerabilities or other abuses of the visa system. Wednesday's proclamation cited Harvard's history "concerning foreign ties and radicalism." "Harvard has failed to provide sufficient information to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about foreign students' known illegal or dangerous activities, reporting deficient data on only three students," it said. It said Harvard has also developed "extensive entanglements with foreign adversaries," while receiving more than $150 million from China alone. In exchange, Harvard has "hosted Chinese Communist Party paramilitary members and partnered with China-based individuals on research that could advance China's military modernization." The Trump administration has accused Harvard of failing to stamp out antisemitism on campus, among other issues. The proclamation said Harvard has seen a "drastic rise in crime in recent years while failing to discipline at least some categories of conduct violations on campus." Harvard officials have said the Trump administration is retaliating against the university with moves to freeze taxpayer-funded research grants, an attempt to revoke its ability to enroll international students, to end it's tax-exempt status and to open an investigation into whether it discriminated against white, Asian, male or straight employees or job applicants. Fox News Digital has reached out to Harvard for comment.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kremlin and Trump aides raise nuclear war fears after Ukraine drone strike
As Vladimir Putin pledges to retaliate against Ukraine for last weekend's unprecedented drone attack, Kremlin advisers and figures around Donald Trump have told the US president that the risk of a nuclear confrontation is growing, in an attempt to pressure him to further reduce US support for Ukraine. Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund and an important intermediary between the Kremlin and Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff, called the Ukrainian drone strike an attack on 'Russian nuclear assets', and echoed remarks from Maga-friendly figures warning of the potential for a third world war. 'Clear communication is urgent – to grasp reality and the rising risks before it's too late,' Dmitriev wrote, adding a dove emoji. Ukraine claimed that the strike damaged more than 40 Russian planes, including Tu-95 and Tu-22M heavy bombers that have been used to launch cruise missiles at Ukrainian cities throughout the war, killing thousands and damaging crucial infrastructure that delivers heat and electricity to millions more. But those planes can also carry weapons armed with nuclear warheads, and are part of a nuclear triad along with submarine and silo-based missiles that form the basis for a system of deterrence between Russia and the United States. After a phone call between the two leaders on Wednesday, Trump said: 'President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on the airfields.' Related: Operation Spiderweb: a visual guide to Ukraine's destruction of Russian aircraft Ukraine voluntarily gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994, in return for security assurances from the US, the UK and Russia. Those skeptical of US support for Ukraine are seizing on the risks of a nuclear confrontation to argue that the conflict could possibly spin out of control. Maga (Make America great again) influencers such as Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk have openly condemned the drone attack, with Bannon likening the strike to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and Kirk writing: 'Most people aren't paying attention, but we're closer to nuclear war than we've been since this began in 2022.' But more centrist advisers within the Trump camp – including some who have closer links to Ukraine – are also warning that the risks of a nuclear conflict are growing as they seek to maintain Trump's interest in brokering a peace. 'The risk levels are going way up,' Keith Kellogg, Trump's envoy for Ukraine and Russia, told Fox News. 'When you attack an opponent's part of their [nuclear] triad, your risk level goes up because you don't know what the other side is going to do. And that's what they did.' Kellogg also repeated rumours that Ukraine had struck the Russian nuclear fleet at Severomorsk, although reports of an explosion there have not been confirmed. He said the US was 'trying to avoid' an escalation. Other current and former members of the administration skeptical of US support for Ukraine have also vocally opposed the drone strikes. 'It is not in America's interest for Ukraine to be attacking Russia's strategic nuclear forces the day before another round of peace talks,' said Dan Caldwell, an influential foreign policy adviser who was a senior aide to Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon until he was purged amid a leaking scandal last month. 'This has the potential to be highly escalatory and raises the risk of direct confrontation between Russia and Nato,' he said. 'US should not only distance itself from this attack but end any support that could directly or indirectly enable attacks against Russian strategic nuclear forces.' It is not the first time that concerns over Russia's use of a nuclear weapon have been used to try to temper US support for Ukraine. As Moscow's forces were routed near Kharkiv and in the south at Kherson in September 2022, Russian officials sent signals that the Kremlin was considering using a battlefield nuclear weapon, senior Biden officials have said. National security officials said they believed that if the Russian lines collapsed and left open the potential for a Ukrainian attack on Crimea, then there was a 50% chance that Russia would use a nuclear weapon as a result. Ukrainian officials have responded by saying that Russia has embellished its threats of a nuclear attack in order to blackmail the US from giving greater support to Ukraine.


Newsweek
36 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Escalates Feud With Harvard Over International Students in New Order
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The White House escalated its battle with Harvard University on Wednesday as President Donald Trump signed a proclamation blocking nearly all foreign students from entering the United States to attend the prestigious Ivy League institution. The Context Trump's move comes after a federal judge blocked his administration from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students. Harvard and other Ivy League schools have drawn Trump's ire since he took office in January over pro-Palestinian student activism on campus. His administration has accused the schools of allowing antisemitism and facilitating the spread of pro-Hamas propaganda by permitting the campus protests, which free-speech advocates say are protected by the First Amendment. What To Know "I have determined that the entry of the class of foreign nationals described above is detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard's conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers," Trump said in his Wednesday order. The president's directive stems from Harvard's refusal to submit to the administration's demands to change its hiring and admission policies and eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, among other issues. Trump's battle with the Cambridge, Massachusetts, university has also intensified in recent days after the school refused his administration's request for records related to foreign students' misconduct. Students from Harvard University's Kennedy School attend the all-university commencement on the Harvard campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29. Students from Harvard University's Kennedy School attend the all-university commencement on the Harvard campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 29. VCG via AP Images This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.