
The Not-So-Secret Society Whose Members Run State
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 audiencehe 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 haseffectively 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


Atlantic
17 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Trump Has a New Definition of Human Rights
For nearly half a century, the State Department has reported annually on human-rights conditions in countries around the world. The purpose of this exercise is not to cast aspersions, but to collect and disseminate reliable information. Congress mandated the reports back in 1977, and since then, legislators and diplomats have used them to shape decisions about sanctions, foreign aid, immigration, and political asylum. Because the reports were perceived as relatively impartial, because they tried to reflect well-articulated standards—'internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'—and because they were composed by professionals reporting from the ground, the annual documents became a gold standard, widely used by people around the world, cited in court cases and political campaigns. Year in and year out, one former official told me, they have been the most downloaded items on the State Department website. Quite a few people will also read the 2024 reports, published yesterday. But they will do so for very different reasons. The original drafts were ready in January, before the Biden administration left office, following the usual practice. In past years, the reports were published in March or April. But this year they were delayed for several months while President Donald Trump's political appointees, including Michael Anton, the MAGA intellectual who is now the State Department's director of policy planning, rewrote the drafts. Some of the changes affect the whole collection of documents, as entire categories of interest were removed. The Obama administration had previously put a strong focus on corruption, on the grounds that kleptocracy and autocracy are deeply linked, and it started collecting information on the persecution of sexual minorities. Over the past few weeks, as the new reports were being prepared, I spoke with former officials who had seen early versions, or who had worked on the reports in the past. As many of them expected, the latest reports do not address systemic discrimination against gay or trans people, and they remove observations about rape and violence against women. But the revisions also go much further than expected, dropping references to corruption, restrictions on free and fair elections, rights to a fair trial, and the harassment of human-rights organizations. Threats to freedom of assembly are no longer considered sufficiently important to mention. In a number of instances, criticism of Israel is classified, crudely, as 'antisemitism.' Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's use of the word genocide to describe the war in Gaza, for example, is listed as an act of 'antisemitism and antisemitic incitement,' even though that term, however disputable or controversial, has also been used by Israelis and in any case violates no international human-rights norms at all. Jonathan Chait: The pro-Israel right is shifting the definition of anti-Semitism Along with the category changes, entries for 20 countries were also flagged for special consideration. These were sent for review to Samuel Samson, a political appointee in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Dozens of professionals have been fired or removed from that office, widely known as DRL; Samson—who is, according to NPR, a recent college graduate and an alumnus of a program designed to put conservative activists into government jobs—remains. The end result of his and others' efforts are reports that contain harsh and surprising assessments of democratic U.S. allies, including the U.K., Romania, Germany, and Brazil, and softer depictions of some dictatorships and other countries favored by Trump or his entourage. El Salvador and Israel, I was told, required so much rewriting that these two entries help explain the long delay in the reports' publication. Reading the results, you can see why. The new Israel report is simply far shorter than the original draft, with no significant discussion of the humanitarian crisis or high death toll in Gaza. El Salvador is a blatant whitewash. 'There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses,' the latest report claims. By contrast, the previous report spoke of 'significant human rights issues' and specifically mentioned harsh, even lethal prison conditions. An Amnesty International report also covering 2024 speaks of 'arbitrary detentions and human rights violations' in El Salvador, as well as 'serious failings in the judicial system.' In overcrowded prisons, 'detention conditions were inhumane, with reports of torture and other ill-treatment.'Here, the State Department's motivation is not hard to guess. Because the Trump administration is sending prisoners to El Salvador, the department massaged the report to avoid the glaring truth: The U.S. is endangering people by sending them to Salvadorean prisons. The report on Germany, a highly functional democracy, is equally strange. The State report speaks of 'significant human rights issues,' including 'restrictions on freedom of expression.' One specific example: German law 'required internet companies, including U.S. internet platforms, to take down hate speech within 24 hours or face stiff fines.' Germans, in other words, are being called human-rights abusers because they continue to outlaw Nazi propaganda, as they have done since 1945. The Trump administration's motives are clear here too. The goal is to please U.S. tech companies, notably X, that find it convenient or profitable to spread Nazi propaganda, and perhaps to help the Alternative for Germany, the far-right party publicly praised and courted by J. D. Vance. But the details of the reports are less important than the overall impact. Several former officials pointed out that the U.S. has not only abandoned internationally accepted definitions of what is meant by rights, but also any objectivity or consistency. Original reporting from embassies has been removed, replaced with language clearly—and in a few cases ludicrously—manipulated by political appointees. This is very bad for human-rights defenders in places like Cuba or China, where activists in the past used U.S. language and reporting to make arguments to their own governments or to international institutions. From the May 2025 issue: America's future is Hungary None of them can now claim that the State Department Human Rights Report has any factual standing, or indeed that any U.S.-government document on human rights is an objective measure of anything. 'This essentially says the United States is no longer your ally, that the United States doesn't see clearly beyond the rhetoric of your regime,' one former official who still has relationships with DRL told me. 'And I think that's really, really tragic.' In truth, some of the changes seem designed not so much to shape U.S. foreign policy as to shape U.S. domestic policy. Christopher Le Mon, a former DRL official, told me he thinks that 'the domestic political agenda is really the organizing principle here.' He might be right. The administration is saying, after all, that it no longer finds electoral cheating or manipulation to be a problem; it doesn't think the harassment of civic groups is a bad thing; it doesn't object to discrimination against women or sexual minorities; and it will never demand transparency or accountability from the providers of internet algorithms, no matter what they choose to amplify or promote. The reports' authors, who include some of the most ideological people in the administration, are also telling Americans what they think of the standards that both Republicans and Democrats have held up for years. Now, says Le Mon, 'they're making it that much easier to just erase human rights from what has been a long-standing, relatively bipartisan history in U.S. foreign policy.' Ironically, this shift in American language puts the U.S. directly in alliance with China, whose diplomats have been campaigning for years to change the diplomatic discourse about human rights. Christopher Walker, a co-author of an influential paper on Chinese influence campaigns, which he calls 'sharp power,' told me that the Chinese Communist Party has been seeking to 'neuter or muddy the waters' around international discussions of fundamental human rights. 'From Beijing's point of view, the more such language is emasculated, the greater the CCP's competitive advantage,' he said. Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, Cubans, and others will also find this shift an immense relief. We knew this was coming. In a speech in Riyadh earlier this year, Trump flagged America's new indifference to human rights, promising the Saudis and other Middle Eastern monarchs that America would stop 'giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs.' That made it sound like the administration would be somehow neutral. But as Walker pointed out, in a world of intense ideological competition, there is no such thing as neutrality. Debates about the definition of human rights will continue. The U.S. will simply play a different role in them. Tom Malinowski, a former congressman who once ran the DRL bureau, puts it best. The reports, he told me, show that the 'U.S. still has a values-based foreign policy, but with twisted values.' Americans are giving plenty of lectures to other people on how to live, but to different people and with a different result.

Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
‘No parent should have to go through this.' Mother of slain UMass student backs Trump's federal takeover of D.C. police.
'My son was murdered,' his mother said. 'I can never see him again. I can never talk to him again. I just stare at his ashes, at his picture ... No parent should have to go through this, or any family. And that's the goal— I don't want another kid to be shot or killed.' Tarpinian-Jachym's intensely personal goal coincides with Advertisement 'I think he understands how bad it is,' she said of Trump, adding that she does not believe he is using her son's death for political purposes. 'This is our nation's capital, and I have to agree with [Trump], it should be the safest place in the country, the cleanest place in the country, and safe for everybody in America or anybody from all over the world to come visit.' Advertisement Tarpinian-Jachym stressed that her goal is improved public safety and said that she and her husband, a retired postal worker, are both registered as independents. She said she was drawn to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s brief pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination and has not been a MAGA supporter. A retired occupational therapist who practiced for many years in Springfield and Holyoke, Tarpinian-Jachym noted that Trump has indicated the federal takeover will be short-term. The deployment of National Guard troops should be given a chance to help local police, she said. Eric Tarpinian-Jachym grew up in Granby, about 15 miles north of Springfield, where he graduated from Pope Francis Preparatory School. He was seeking a degree in finance with a minor in political science at UMass Amherst. While her son wound up interning for a Republican, Ron Estes of Kansas, he was politically independent, she said. 'He was not this staunch Trumpster, like people are trying to make him out. He's an independent voter in Massachusetts, like all of us are,' she said. 'He was an independent, and he went to [Washington] to go and learn from both sides of the aisle.' Compounding the family's grief is the long, painful road Eric traveled in recent years. From 2020 until last year, he faced a number of health challenges — his mother declined to be specific — that required multiple surgeries, long and difficult rehabilitation, and accommodations at college when health problems derailed his class schedule. 'It was four years of hell' that included long stays at Boston's Children Hospital, his mother recalled. Advertisement But by January, his health had improved and Eric was 'The poor kid was having a good run for six months without being in a hospital, without complaining about pain,' she said. 'And on day 30 — he was there 30 days to the day — he got shot on that street and died the next day. That's why I am so angry." Around 10:30 p.m. on June 30, multiple people got out of a car at the intersection of 7th and M Street and began firing at a group of people, police said. Tarpinian-Jachym, a 16-year-old boy, and a woman were shot. Police believe the 16-year-old may have been the target and that Tarpinian-Jachym was an innocent bystander. A black Acura police believe was used in the shooting was later recovered, officials said. No arrests have been made and police have Tamara Tarpinian-Jachym said police have not returned any of her son's effects, including his phone that she keeps texting. 'Hopefully the case will be solved,' she said. Her son loved fishing, she recalled, especially with his father. In late May, they went to Block Island together and had an excellent day catching and releasing stripers. Advertisement Her husband worked part-time at the dining hall at Amherst College and would meet Eric for coffee at 4 p.m. in town nearly every day, she said. Those fishing trips, the meetings over coffee, and so much more are now gone, she said. 'Homicide is the worst thing a parent can experience, and my heart goes out to all parents of homicide victims,' she said. 'I wish it was me. My husband wishes it was him. So he could have lived his life." John R. Ellement can be reached at


NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Far-right populists top polls in Germany, France and Britain for the first time
LONDON — For the first time in modern history, far-right and populist parties are simultaneously topping the polls in Europe's three main economies of Germany, France and Britain. A poll Tuesday showed Alternative for Germany — which is under surveillance by the country's intelligence services over suspected extremism — is now the most favored by voters. The survey by broadcaster RTL put the AfD at 26%, ahead of the ruling Christian Democrats at 24%. This is a high watermark for the European far right, a once fringe movement whose virulently anti-immigration, anti-Islam and culture-war politics were shunned by the mainstream just a decade ago. Today, these parties have developed deep ties with President Donald Trump and his Republican allies, who openly cite nationalists such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán as inspirations on policy and tactics. For years, France's National Rally has consistently led polls ahead of the country's next presidential election in 2027. And Britain's Reform U.K., led by Trump ally and friend Nigel Farage, has since April topped most polls there. Far-right parties have been elected over the past few years into the governments of Italy, Hungary and elsewhere. The center right and the center left have hemorrhaged votes amid high inflation, fears over immigration and collapsing faith in institutions — all familiar issues in America, too. Tuesday's polling milestone is 'a sign of the power of populism, disinformation and the failure of established parties to understand what is happening,' said Nic Cheeseman, a professor of democracy and international development at England's University of Birmingham. Though the far right has been making gains for the past decade, Cheeseman believes the polls showing the far right leading Europe's top three economies is 'a first — at least in modern times.' There is no guarantee that London, Berlin and Paris will be ruled by far-right parties; these countries' next elections are not until 2029, 2029 and 2027 respectively. These groups are all polling in the 20s and 30s percentage-wise, enough to lead polls in Europe's multiparty systems but not enough to govern alone outside of a coalition. Most of Europe's politicians on this former fringe reject the 'far right' label, with its historical connotations of the Nazism that marauded the continent 80 years ago. Many scholars say these parties nevertheless fit the academic model, defined by nativism — the idea that perceived 'non-native' groups threaten their social fabric — and harsh punishments for criminality. The roots of the far-right surge lie in the world financial crisis of 2008, which prompted government to cut budgets for public services and lowered living standards, some experts say, compounded by the Arab Spring of 2011 that birthed civil war in Syria and a mass refugee crisis in Europe four years later. More recent societal stressors such as the coronavirus pandemic and war in Ukraine have further increased the allure of populism, according to Hans-Jakob Schindler, the senior director of the Counter Extremism Project, a nonprofit international group. But populist parties in Europe have also harnessed social media more powerfully than their more centrist opponents, he said. 'They are masters of using social media much better than any of the more established parties,' he said. 'When you have easy solutions to complex problems' — as he says populist parties do — 'it's easier to communicate than complex political issues that the actual parties, who do politics rather than just doing populism, will have to deal with.'