A Reuters investigation published May 21 reported that U.S. allies are increasingly struggling to interpret President Donald Trump’s foreign policy as vacant ambassadorial posts, State Department restructuring, a smaller National Security Council and the growing role of informal intermediaries reshape how Washington communicates with the world.

The report, titled “Inside the unraveling of U.S. diplomacy under Trump,” described a foreign-policy system in which governments from Europe to Asia are trying to determine when Trump’s public warnings signal official policy, when they are negotiating tactics and who inside the U.S. government can provide authoritative answers. Reuters framed the shift as a central feature of Trump’s second term: diplomacy driven more by the president’s personal network and special envoys than by the traditional chain of embassies, regional bureaus and interagency coordination.

The freshest example cited by Reuters involved Trump’s April 7 warning to Iran that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” According to the report, a European diplomat in Washington said his government sought an urgent answer to whether the president was contemplating use of a nuclear weapon. The concern extended beyond Iran, Reuters reported, because European and Asian officials feared that ambiguous nuclear rhetoric from Washington could be read by Russia or others as a precedent in other conflicts.

Reuters reported that the State Department could not provide the clarity the diplomat sought. The account underscored the practical risk facing foreign governments: when the U.S. president issues a dramatic statement during a crisis, diplomats traditionally look to embassies, the State Department or the National Security Council for guidance. The investigation said those channels have become less reliable as personnel changes, vacancies and internal uncertainty have narrowed the number of officials able or willing to speak definitively.

The problem is partly structural. The American Foreign Service Association’s public tracker, updated May 19, listed 195 ambassadorial positions and 109 vacancies. While vacancies are common early in administrations and during confirmation delays, the scale described by Reuters and AFSA means many posts are being run by chargés d’affaires or other interim officials rather than Senate-confirmed ambassadors with direct presidential authority.

Reuters also reported that only about 9% of Trump’s second-term ambassadorial appointees are career diplomats, a sharp reduction in the share of professional Foreign Service officers placed in top overseas posts. Former diplomats quoted by Reuters warned that the shift reduces institutional memory at a time when the United States is handling multiple overlapping foreign-policy tests, including Iran, Ukraine, NATO burden-sharing, competition with China and global trade disputes.

The Trump administration has defended its approach as a necessary correction. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in April 2025 what the department called a comprehensive reorganization to build an “America First State Department.” State Department budget documents for fiscal 2027 said the department had overhauled its foreign assistance structure and pursued broader reorganization efforts in 2025 and 2026. Administration officials have argued that the changes are meant to remove duplication, focus resources on core priorities and ensure that U.S. diplomats carry out the president’s agenda.

Critics, including former ambassadors and career officials cited by Reuters, say the cumulative effect has been a hollowing out of professional diplomacy. The Associated Press reported in July 2025 that the State Department was firing more than 1,300 employees under the Trump administration’s reorganization plan, including civil servants and Foreign Service officers with domestic assignments. Reuters’ May 21 investigation placed those cuts within a broader pattern that also included recalls of career ambassadors, reduced interagency coordination and a greater role for outside networks.

One of Reuters’ central examples involved Bridget Brink, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Brink said the sudden March 2025 halt in U.S. military aid and intelligence sharing to Ukraine came without warning, even though U.S. personnel in Kyiv depended in part on Ukrainian air defenses using U.S. and allied equipment to protect against Russian drones and missiles. Reuters reported that Brink said embassy staff sought answers from the Pentagon, State Department and White House but did not receive a clear explanation at the time.

The aid was later resumed, but the episode illustrated how abrupt policy moves can affect not only foreign partners but also U.S. personnel overseas. In a traditional system, embassies are expected to help explain policy to host governments and report local conditions back to Washington. Reuters’ account suggested that, in some cases, embassies themselves are being left to interpret decisions after they are made.

The National Security Council is another pressure point. Reuters reported that Trump cut the NSC from hundreds of people to a few dozen and that current and former officials described months with little formal guidance on major issues such as Ukraine and NATO. A White House official disputed that regular or interagency meetings had stopped, telling Reuters that meetings were smaller and focused on Trump’s priorities.

The result, according to the investigation, is that foreign governments are adapting. Some officials are trying to reach Trump’s circle directly or through figures seen as having influence with him. Reuters identified Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff among the personal or special-channel figures foreign governments have sought to understand or influence U.S. policy. Such channels are not new in American diplomacy; presidents have often used trusted advisers or special envoys. The concern raised by former officials is that, under the current model, those channels appear to be replacing rather than supplementing the institutional system.

Reuters also examined the Ben Franklin Fellowship, a conservative network within and around the State Department that says it supports officials aligned with the administration’s agenda and counters what its leaders view as bias against conservatives. The report said the Heritage Foundation gave the group a $100,000 grant and that fellowship figures have advised on which career diplomats they consider resistant to Trump’s policies. The State Department told Reuters that personnel decisions are not made based on participation in outside groups or demographic quotas.

For allies, the political sensitivity is acute. Governments that depend on U.S. security guarantees, trade ties or intelligence cooperation have incentives to avoid public criticism of Trump while privately seeking clarity about policy direction. That dynamic can make disagreements less visible but more difficult to manage. Reuters reported that officials in Europe and Asia are learning to discount some public rhetoric while searching for reliable signals through other channels.

The stakes extend beyond diplomatic protocol. During crises involving nuclear language, military aid, sanctions or alliance commitments, unclear U.S. messaging can move markets, affect military calculations and shape adversaries’ perceptions of risk. A vacant embassy post or an underpowered regional bureau does not automatically produce a policy failure, but it can slow the transmission of information at moments when governments need fast answers.

The administration’s supporters argue that previous diplomatic structures were too slow, too independent of elected leadership and too resistant to Trump’s priorities. Their view is that a president is entitled to demand loyalty from the bureaucracy and to use direct channels when traditional processes obstruct policy. The Reuters investigation shows the counterargument: that diplomacy depends on continuity, credible representation and a professional apparatus capable of explaining presidential decisions before uncertainty becomes a crisis.

As of May 21, the dispute is less about a single diplomatic episode than about the architecture of U.S. power. The United States still has unmatched military reach, deep alliances and global economic influence. But Reuters’ reporting suggests that foreign governments are reassessing how to engage Washington when the formal machinery of diplomacy appears less central to decision-making. For allies, the immediate challenge is practical: finding out what the United States means, who can confirm it and whether the answer will still hold after the next presidential statement.