Q&A with CPD: Carl Budd

In this series, CPD interviews international thought-leaders and key practitioners of public diplomacy. Here, CPD's Juliana Maitenaz speaks with Carl Budd, a foreign service officer with the U.S. Department of State.  Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of Carl Budd and not necessarily those of the U.S. Government.

Could you tell us a bit about your career? What drew you to public diplomacy, public service, and working for the State Department?

Anchored in a faith that valorizes peacemaking and welcoming the stranger and animated by an insatiable curiosity about the wider world, I have been drawn to diplomacy for as long as I have known what an embassy was.  After my junior year of college, I interned with the Diplomatic Security Service (DS), the U.S. State Department’s law enforcement and security arm.  Nine years later, I cleared the hurdles necessary to land an offer of employment as a U.S. diplomat.

During that near-decade, I earned a BA in international studies and French from Bradley University in my hometown of Peoria, Illinois and a master's in migration and refugee studies at the American University in Cairo (Egypt) as a Rotary Ambassadorial Scholar (shout out to the Rotary Club of Peoria and District 6460).  I worked in New York City in the non-profit sector, including for the Scholar Rescue Fund, which provides support to professors and researchers fleeing persecution and war.

As a DS intern, I joined the regional security officer (RSO) and assistant RSOs on all kinds of adventures:  attending the Paris Air Show and meeting the various teams guarding their countries against economic espionage; “advancing”—planning, coordination, and site assessment conducted before a principal arrives at a location; a trilateral meeting between the United States, France, and Lebanon; hearing from Justice of the Supreme Court Anthony Kennedy in a private briefing for embassy leadership; running security for a Food Network shoot at the ambassador's residence into the wee hours; a massive Fourth of July party; and more. 

I got a summer's worth of immersion in embassy life and met a lot of Foreign Service specialists and officers ("FSOs," as U.S. diplomats are called) who were worked to the bone at one of our busiest and most frequently-visited missions.  I held no illusion that they were having as much fun as I was.  As a wide-eyed (and unpaid) college student eager to support the work of diplomacy however I could, I felt patriotic just creating spreadsheets, inspecting apartments in the embassy housing pool for safety, and working into the wee hours ensuring prima donna TV personalities didn't sneak to off-limits parts of the ambassador's residence.    

Embassy Paris (our shorthand for the U.S. embassy in Paris, just as Mission France refers to sum total of the embassy and all the consulates in that country) generally attracts ambitious career-focused types from a pool of officers who already see themselves as Type A.  I watched these officers and specialists break their backs at this high-visibility post. It was led, as it always is, by a political appointee ambassador.  Roughly a third of U.S. embassies are led by non-career ambassadors named by the president, often drawn from among donors, political allies, family friends, and relatives.  That brings its own set of pressure and challenges for embassy staff no matter the administration.  A majority of the Americans working there didn’t seem to be able to enjoy the famed Parisian lifestyle, committed as they were to piling up uncompensated overtime and making sacrifices (as visibly as possible in many cases) to advance professionally. 

So, while my internship experience was and remains a highlight of my young life, the perception of the Foreign Service that I left with did not persuade me it was a path for me.  I did, nevertheless, take the Foreign Service Officer Test, the computerized evaluation that is the first step of the hiring process, a few times in my 20s.  I passed each time but never made it past the second step, the personal narrative questions (which no longer figure into recruitment).  It seemed like maybe the ambivalence was mutual, so I carried on building a life in my beloved New York, working jobs that advanced international understanding and helped defend human rights. 

A chance catch-up sent me back into the arms of Uncle Sam.  An FSO friend on the economic career track who I knew from Embassy Paris was working at the U.S. Mission to the UN (USUN), right across the street from the Scholar Rescue Fund office at the Institute of International Education.  USUN is another famously high-octane posting, which makes sense for my friend, a rare soul who is both ambitious and deeply humane.  Over coffee, she asked me why I wasn’t in the Foreign Service and I told her I didn’t think the Department wanted me.  She summarily dismissed that as nonsense, told me to try again, and asked me to send her my PNQs—those short narratives illustrating how an aspiring FSO embodies the qualities necessary for success in diplomacy. 

Her appraisal: I had solid examples but didn't write "for government."  Florid academic language apparently didn't cut the mustard with the Board of Examiners.  At my friend's urging, I gave it one last go just before I turned 30.  I used the same illustrative anecdotes but in a less subtle BLUF style (Bottom Line Up Front—the State Department tends to gulp down military jargon and acronyms, while the Pentagon doesn't think of us at all).  This time around, I made it to the orals and got the highest score of my assessment cohort—the first of many lessons learned about how to adapt to government work. 

I can't be sure it was actually the rightsizing and BLUFfication that made the difference.  The selection process is notoriously opaque.  It could have come down to the composition of the board of examiners, the prowess of my competitors, or the fact that I switched tracks.  You have to select your career track (“cone”) ahead of the test and I had only ever tried to join as a political officer before.  There was a Yahoo! group, and then and still a very active Sub-Reddit where aspiring Foreign Service officers and specialists dissect every aspect and every change of the recruitment and assessment process.  One could go mad obsessing over all the ins and outs and trying to identify the secret sauce.  My advice, like that of many other successful aspirants, is to go into the whole thing with tempered expectations and maintain them all the way until you show up for A-100. 

I'll return briefly, though, on the career track switch to find my way back to the question about what drew me to public diplomacy (PD).  One of the things there’s much chatter about on the Sub-Reddit and offline is the competitiveness of each career track.  It varies, but it’s understood that the political track is the hardest to enter on.  Political work, in broad strokes, involves analytical reporting and government-to-government (or multilateral or international organization) advocacy of U.S. foreign policy.  It’s the kind of work many people would immediately think of when they hear the word "diplomat."

I didn’t think much about PD, despite having participated in numerous exchanges, studied abroad in France, completed a degree at a U.S.-Egyptian university in Cairo, long followed official news outlets of foreign countries, and attended foreign embassies’ cultural events.  And yet, all of those activities involve being on the receiving end of foreign public diplomacy efforts.  I had also already worked in roles as a program officer at the Institute of International Education both on their Foreign Fulbright program and at the Scholar Rescue Fund, which support the PD work of the State Department.  It wasn’t until the catch-up coffee with my USUN friend that I really considered this essential U.S. government-to-foreign public work as a career path. 

Even though she’s an economic-track officer, my friend rightly extoled PD work.  Operating in and through the currents of culture, education, and media, PD practitioners are exposed to issues and foreign policy priorities broadly.  You have to know a little about a lot—be a generalist’s generalist—from the political and economic work to the day-to-day functioning of embassies and consulates to visa adjudication and U.S. citizen services that comprise the responsibilities of our fellow FSOs in the other career tracks. 

Mirroring that breadth of topics is the is the wide range of demographics of our audiences.  PD functions entail informing and influencing all kinds of people from all walks of life in service of all kinds of objectives.  Our exchange programs build the scaffolding of relationships between rising leaders in foreign countries and our diplomats as well as with other Americans in academia, the private sector, and civil society.  Our communications role in a crisis is essential to enabling consular teams to assist in evacuations and get Americans (and others) timely, actionable information to ensure their safety.  And articulating what everyone actually does at an embassy or back in Washington at headquarters is the foundation of ensuring the American people (and appropriators in Congress) understand what diplomacy is and why it matters. 

A couple highlights from my career in PD so far:  traveling across Botswana to meet with grantees and kgosi (tribal leaders) in the communities benefiting from embassy-funded programming.  I got to see firsthand the impact of U.S. investment in improving education, job skills, and entrepreneurship.  I was able to report back to embassy leadership and our selection committees to shape the future of our partnership with the people of Botswana and their elected leaders.  Perhaps the most fun I had came from running the Young African Leaders Initiative orientation for one of the cohorts and seeing them through their fellowship cycle:  from the orientation where we discussed expectations and perceptions of the United States, to their travel to multiple states and Washington, D.C. where they met with U.S. experts and leaders in their fields and disciplines to their return to Botswana and debrief with our chargé d’affaires.  Then, their mentorship of other up-and-coming young leaders and continued engagement with the embassy at events and in relaying substantive information that enhanced our reporting back to Washington. 

And on the press side: going from managing a team responsible for the embassy in Botswana’s social media strategy, a radio show, and traditional media engagement to a position in Washington responsible for supporting senior officials giving interviews to Middle East-based media outlets was eye opening.  Unlike many of my Civil Service colleagues and some FSOs, I don’t have a journalism or communications background, so learning the PR side of IR has come from experience.  With the help of Civil Servants who have supported officials and wrangled press for years, I began staffing interviews, starting with the UN General Assembly in New York.  Covering the Middle East, which included supporting our media hubs and Arabic and Persian-language spokespeople in London and Dubai already constituted a complicated portfolio and the events and fallout of October 7 only made that an order of magnitude harder.  Setting aside whether messaging during that time can be considered successful, I learned a lot about maintaining relationships with journalists in the face of information scarcity, about who drives messaging priorities (and how that can change within and across administrations), and how to identify which principals may be best suited to speak on an issue, when, and how to prepare them.  On a personal level, I also had to grapple with my professional responsibilities and my personal convictions, an endeavor that is essential to this career and that I am still learning how to approach. 

Two-year tours—the usual for domestic stints and for entry-level overseas rotations—are just long enough that when you really hit your stride and have a sense of self-confidence, it is already time to bid on your next gig.  I did feel a tremendous sense of accomplishment, though, to have been recognized as a capable trainer, leading on delivering media training to some of our most senior officials halfway through my time in International Media Engagement. 

Before my time in Washington, I had only a murky understanding of what happened back in Foggy Bottom, the D.C. neighborhood and metonym for the State Department.  Now, not only can I navigate the labyrinth of the Harry S. Truman building, but I understand decision-making, the flow of resources, and who does what—something that will make me much effective my next overseas tour.

I am not sure I was wrong to be a little scared off by what I saw of a career in Foreign Service as an intern in Paris.  The sacrifices demanded in order to rise through the ranks are hard to stomach when the connection between them and a more peaceful, more humane world are cloudy at best.  The bureaucracy can be maddening.  And the ethical complexities of representing U.S. policy don't get easier with experience.  But public diplomacy at its best, when it moves beyond propaganda (the original, once normal descriptor of the work we now call PD) and allows for the possibility of unexpected advances brought about by goodwill among very different people—solidarity across difference as an author who inspires me talks about, retains so much possibility.

Every tour teaches me something new, sometimes through adversity or counterexamples, but always through human connection.  Botswana taught me the power of sustained engagement with communities when there are resources and specific objectives structuring it.  Washington taught me how policy gets made and unmade.  Both (and my time doing consular work in Tel Aviv and in my current role doing domestic outreach) taught me that the most meaningful diplomatic work often happens in the relationships we build, the trust we earn, and the understanding we foster.  Creating those channels is what keeps me in this line of work and what I hope to continue to deliver for the American people.

What qualities have you found essential for an FSO to develop? How do you see the field developing in the next decade?

The ideal U.S. Foreign Service officer embodies moral character and a tempered faith in the possibilities the United States represents to the world. Without integrity, we fail our country, our colleagues, and our obligation to defend the Constitution. Without a genuine belief in the United States, we are vulnerable to corrosive cynicism or craven opportunism, distorting policy and undermining international frameworks that improve people’s lives.

Those foundations must be shored up by a capacity for endurance and a long-term perspective. Tours can differ radically in responsibilities, opportunities, and conditions, but officers who can see how each role fits into a larger professional arc are more likely to find meaning and a sense of accomplishment and overcome adversity.  Whether the challenge is a coup d’état or a vindictive manager, a pandemic or social isolation at a small post, grounding in values and an eye on long-term goals is what carries officers through.  That perspective also matters when your character and values are tested—just because you can endure, should you endure?  How will you look back on this stretch?  Are you being faithful to your commitment to the Constitution and to yourself?

Over the next decade, FSOs will need an ever sharper ability to distinguish hype from reality inside an institution that has often lagged behind on technology even as it whips itself into a frenzy over AI.  Tech literacy will be essential, but alongside it, critical thinking. As functions such as promotion panel composition, journalist vetting, policy drafting, and other judgment-intensive tasks are increasingly supported or supplemented by automated tools, the primary risk is not simply error but a diffusion of responsibility and reduced scrutiny.  The central competency will be not only effective use of these tools, but also the ability to evaluate their outputs, understand their limitations, and retain clear accountability for decisions.

FSOs in every era have had to adapt new methods and wield new tools in service of the American people.  To meet this moment, we have to resist the temptation to ascribe oracular powers or moral authority to AI.  We're operating in an age of increasing corporate capture of government, with powerful incentives to portray AI as an apocalyptic threat, which conveniently justifies the U.S. government steering more capital and yielding more power to tech and defense companies run by and for the benefit of billionaires.  The real threat is not rogue AI killing us all. It is in decisionmakers at every level abdicating moral responsibility to software with Silicon Valley and the defense industries biases baked into it.

The line between military and the tech sector has always been blurred, but the integration of AI into foreign policy escalates the tension between the integrity of American diplomacy and the often competing aims, methods, and values of the private sector, the military, and the intelligence community.  The State Department should not be a junior partner; we should lead on foreign policy.  At the level of the individual FSO, the need for steadiness and singularity of purpose in defending the Constitution and serving the American people as diplomats means not aping Silicon Valley or the Pentagon, or anyone else.  The integrity of U.S. diplomacy depends on America's diplomats championing diplomacy. 

And of course, keeping our wits about us only matters if we also keep our moral compasses calibrated.  The benefit—for the American people and for us—of a nonpartisan career service is that we can think long‑term and bring hard‑earned experience to whichever duly elected president is charged with executing U.S. foreign policy.   Remaining above and apart from the political fray is extremely difficult but essential, even when politics engulfs our work and our workplace.  And it is not the same thing as neutrality on the issues.  Nonpartisanship is not the same as neutrality on issues; it demands the moral courage to give advice grounded in expertise, experience, and the Constitution, not in what is easiest to swallow or most likely to advance our careers.             

Your work in public diplomacy so far has included managing Fulbright and IVLP exchanges, amongst many other things. International exchange has been a mainstay in the PD toolbox, do you see it as continuing in its importance to the field?

The Fulbright Program, the International Visitor Leadership Program, our various regional young leaders initiatives and other exchanges run by the Department and by other institutions will continue to be important to public diplomacy for years to come.

What’s somewhat new is how this Administration articulates the aim of exchanges.  Our current Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs aims to move beyond building mutual understanding and forging people-to-people connections to develop an instinct among emerging leaders abroad to look to the United States as a partner and for inspiration as opposed to a U.S. rival.  The Department’s officials speak in terms of the “strategic value” of public diplomacy and a desire to see exchanges not only improve public sentiment toward the United States, but to increase our national power.

Justifying in quantitative terms what the U.S. taxpayer gains beyond mutual understanding isn’t new but is becoming more explicitly and “data-driven”. And, as in other aspects of public diplomacy, like media engagement, practitioners, academics, and policymakers are rethinking how to deliver that value, looking for unconventional avenues alongside flagship programs like Fulbright.  As the Center of Public Diplomacy’s foremost thinkers on the subject advocate, digital platforms, virtual exchanges, and hybrid models will continue to figure more into exchange strategies for the U.S. government, foreign governments, and NGOs.  Current examples funded by State include:

• The J. Christopher Stevens Virtual Exchange Initiative, which
  “advances U.S. foreign policy priorities by championing American scientific excellence, technological leadership, and innovation, while promoting core U.S. principles—freedom of speech, individual liberty, and the rule of law—as foundations of peace and prosperity” through interactive digital programming. 
• The Community Engagement Exchange Program’s Leadership and Civic Engagement Academy uses “blended learning” components to allow fellows “to develop and practice leadership skills that are essential for building their individual and collective abilities to lead and address societal challenges."

Regardless of how we frame it and which aims a given administration prioritizes as it leverages these programs, student and professional exchanges are a pillar of American diplomacy and an adjunct to the formal diplomat-to-diplomat connections.  With an expansion of possible avenues and the proliferation of new formats for exchange, I am confident this foreign policy tool is here to stay. 

You were named a Davis Public Diplomacy Fellow for 2025-2026. (Congratulations!) Could you tell us a bit about the Fellowship and the experiences that have shaped your work in public diplomacy during the award period?

Thank you! The fellowship was endowed by Kathryn Wasserman Davis, whose husband was from my hometown of Peoria, Illinois, and endowed the public library there. Each year, two or more mid‑career public diplomacy‑coned FSOs are selected as Davis Public Diplomacy Fellows and begin a year of professional development with CPD’s Summer Institute. Beyond the great weather, I valued having two weeks to step back from day‑to‑day practice and learn from academics and fellow diplomats about work I’m often too deep in to see clearly. Seeing how CPD and other parts of USC engage with the consular corps in Los Angeles and the City of Los Angeles also shaped how I approached the state and local diplomacy portfolio in my current job.

Another perk of the fellowship has been the relationships with my fellow fellows who sit in different bureaus from me and now serve as regular sounding boards in my day-to-day work. 

Back in D.C., our cohort has met monthly with mentors—former ambassadors, members of the Public Diplomacy Council of America, academics, and private‑sector experts—to build on the Summer Institute and dig deeper into the context of our tradecraft. Studying the integration of USIA into State has explained a lot about how we got here, and hearing concrete examples of AI in practice has helped me sharpen my criticism of it as a tool while recognizing that it has its place. Spending time on monitoring and evaluation reminded me that, despite all our metrics, it is still easy to be swept up in daily busyness and forget to tell the story of what we do—which is ironic, given how central storytelling is to public diplomacy.

The fellowship concludes with an article for publication, which is a welcome chance to draw together some of the lessons and throughlines from this experience.

Finally, the connection to the Council of American Ambassadors (CAA) and its wider network has been hugely additive for my public engagement work. I was able, for example, to organize a podcast conversation between CAA’s president, Ambassador Philip Hughes, and Under Secretary Sarah Rogers on the state of diplomacy, an exchange between diplomats that focused on the craft of explaining policy to the public. Through the fellowship networks, I have also been able to arrange meetings and events for the Deputy Secretary and other principals on domestic travel, which has strengthened my office’s role in explaining the importance and practice of U.S. diplomacy to Americans.

This has been the best professional development experience of my public diplomacy career so far, and I’m grateful for the reflection it has allowed and for the practical benefits and relationships it has brought to my work at the Department.