Something is changing in our country, and most
people feel it before they can explain it. Good
afternoon. I'm Peter Mina, founder of the Mina
Firm, a civil rights and federal employment law
firm in Washington, D .C., as well as a former
deputy officer for civil rights and civil liberties
at the Department of Homeland Security, where
I work to integrate civil rights and civil liberties
protections in the department's national security
programs. And you are listening to the Steady
State Sentinel from the Steady State. We are
facing an existential threat, growing autocracy
in the United States. The Steady State Sentinel
is a place where we and our distinguished guests
use our national security expertise to discuss
and analyze the decisions and acts of this administration
that feed that autocratic slide and threaten
to supplant the pillars of our constitutional
democracy. Today, we have the pleasure of talking
with Eric Rubin, Senior Fellow with the Democratic
Resilience Program at the Center for European
Policy Analysis, or SIPA, and a member of the
Board of Directors at the Steady State. Eric
is a former career diplomat who served 38 years
in the U .S. Foreign Service, attaining the rank
of Minister Counselor before retiring in 2023.
Eric began his career in 1985 as a political
and human rights officer in Honduras. He later
held key assignments in Ukraine, Russia, and
Thailand, and served as U .S. ambassadors of
Bulgaria from 2016 to 2019. Following his ambassadorship,
Eric was elected president of the American Foreign
Service Association, the professional association
and union representing America's career diplomats,
serving from 2019 to 2023. In recent years, Eric
has emerged as one of the most forceful critics
of the Trump administration's reshaping of the
State Department, publishing detailed analyses
of what he describes as the systematic dismantlement
of a nonpartisan foreign service. Welcome to
the program, Eric. Thank you very much, Peter.
Glad to be here. So I was wondering if we could
start off with you describing a little bit about
your current work at SIPA and in particular,
the Democratic Resilience Program. So SIPA is
one of several part -time affiliations that I
have. And I joined and was grateful to have the
opportunity to join because I remain focused
on and passionately committed to, I want to say,
completing the work of what was started at the
end of the Cold War. But to some extent now,
we're talking about saving the work that was
started at the end of the Cold War. People forget
that several hundred million people achieved
freedom and democracy in the early 1990s after
living under totalitarian governments. And a
lot of the initial enthusiasm, optimism, some
would say excessive optimism, has been replaced
with a sense of really... uh going things going
in the wrong direction so one of the things i
wanted to contribute to is since this is so much
part of my life's work the work i did in ukraine
and with ukraine the work i did in russia in
bulgaria with all of that region uh trying to
do what i can to contribute to not just furthering
it but to some extent we're looking at at saving
it and the recent election result in hungary
is a very positive sign after many years of negative
developments. And to that end, unfortunately,
we had an administration that supported the autocratic
regime of, you know, Viktor Orban with even the
vice president going to campaign for him. And
so with that as a backdrop, and you mentioned
your many part -time jobs post -retirement. I
was wondering if maybe you could tell us a little
bit about what led you at the beginning to a
career in diplomacy and national security and
how that sort of initial commitment has now motivated
your work following your retirement from the
State Department. Certainly. So I got the international
bug, I would call it, very early. My parents
were big travelers, and we went somewhere every
summer when I was a kid and my brother was a
kid. And then I did a bunch of exchange programs
in France, in Israel, in the UK. And I really
loved the experience of living overseas and doing
that. And when I was in college, I had an advisor
who had been in the Foreign Service and who also
interestingly had worked for the CIA. And he
said to me, I think you'd be a great fit for
either of those careers. And I said, well, coming
from the family I come from, the CIA is not an
option. I could never explain that to my parents.
My parents were fairly left of center, let's
put it that way. But the Foreign Service sounds
intriguing. And to make a long story short, he
encouraged me to take the Foreign Service exam
when I was a senior. And I did. And it took a
few years. I had been doing journalism for most
of my time in school all the way through college.
And then my first job after college was as a
reporter trainee at the New York Times, which
is where I met my wife the first week after graduation.
And we're together now after 43 years. So that
was amazing. Congratulations. But the journalism
part didn't really work out. So I basically.
had the opportunity to take the foreign service
exam, I was thinking of other opportunities like
law school, which is certainly for my generation,
the default thing. If you don't know what you
want to do, you go to law school. But then I
got in and that started a 38 -year odyssey starting
in 1985. And I'm very, very grateful. I certainly
have no regrets. It was an amazing almost 40
years. But now we find ourselves in a very different
place. And to some extent, what I'm doing now
in multiple ways and with multiple organizations
is trying to do what I can to help save my life's
work. And suffice it to say, I'm not alone in
this. My colleagues aren't. This is true of so
many people. But my life's work is under very
serious threat. Absolutely. And I think you've
probably answered the question I'm about to ask
you. But given what you just said in terms of
trying to protect and defend what you built over
the course of a nearly 40 -year career, are there
other factors that at least contribute to that
analysis? actually be willing to step out and
be an advocate for the career diplomatic corps,
as well as an outspoken critic of what the administration
is doing. Because I think there are a lot of
people, you know, with no judgment whatsoever,
who, you know, might absolutely share your point
of view, but for any number of reasons, are just
afraid to come forward. You know, because they're
afraid of retribution, they're afraid of what
it might mean for their post government career.
What drives you past all those fears to speak
out? Some of it is how I grew up. I mean, I grew
up with parents who were very involved in the
civil rights movement. My mother was at the March
on Washington with Dr. King in 1963. She was
an official of the New York Urban League. I grew
up going to Vietnam War moratorium marches wearing
a black armband. That was how I grew up, also
a very strong supporter of unions and unionism.
I learned all the union songs, Which Side Are
You On, The Ballad of Joe Hill, all of that as
a kid. But beyond that, I understand the fear
because it's real and it's not just us. Senator
Murkowski said, why are senators not? standing
up for what they believe in. And she said, because
we're afraid. You know, Governor Shapiro and
his family almost died on Passover evening in
the governor's mansion. And it's not excessive
to be afraid, but... I think it's make or break
at this point. And I also passionately believe
that despite our flaws and despite our mistakes,
and certainly the Vietnam War and the Iraq War,
in my opinion, were mistakes of the worst magnitude.
I really believe that the world without us is
really going to be a scary place. And there's
no doubt in my mind that. our current leadership
wants it to be a world without american leadership
they want it to be a world where america makes
money and individuals uh profit from uh dysfunction
and war and and all of that but um you know we're
actually at a point where it's very real nato
may not survive the un may not survive this is
not hysterics this is is very real so you know
i just feel like i was very privileged i had
a great career i um You know, and I could have
stayed a few years longer, but 38 years was pretty
great. But, you know, I achieved everything I
had hoped to, but I feel like I had a lot of
privilege and, you know, really need to give
back. And I understand. And, you know, my brother
likes to say, I really don't want to visit you
in prison. And, you know, once upon a time, I
would have said that's an absurd thing to say,
but I understand it's not quite absurd anymore.
But I just decided to be all in. And I'm not
alone. There are a lot of us who just feel, you
know, it's not just about our profession. It's
not just about the conduct of diplomacy. It's
about America and the world. And, you know, our
optimism that really, to some extent, has been
dashed since the end of the Cold War after a
lot of initial, I would say, enthusiasm and hopefulness.
You've mentioned, obviously, your amazing family
history of advocacy, and you mentioned union
support. One of the things I wanted to touch
on with you briefly is your role as president
of AFSA, as well as the unfortunate elimination
of AFSA as a recognized union, as well as other
unions around the federal government. And then
to also juxtapose that with... the rise of organizations
like the Benjamin Franklin Foundation, and then,
you know, some of these other, you know, Heritage
Foundation affiliated groups that have really
come after members of the civil service. And
so how do you see preserving the, in your case,
the career diplomatic corps, you know, sort of
in the wake of all of the normal, you know, resources
that would be there to support them, you know,
having been eliminated, or at least significantly
weakened? I think it's important to start with
the fact, and it is a fact in my opinion, that
a lot of what has happened is completely illegal.
Absolutely. And completely contrary to legislation,
in some cases to the Constitution. I mean, the
fact that the State Department, the Foreign Service,
and the Civil Service were unionized in 1972.
was established in federal labor legislation
in 1972 signed by president nixon and then in
1980 with the passage of the foreign service
act it's in that legislation as well it's it's
not optional uh congress decided and the presidents
in question president nixon and president carter
signed the legislation uh that uh we would have
unions along with most of the rest of the federal
government More importantly, though, I think
what we've seen is a real erosion of the notion
that employees, federal employees, have agency,
have the right to have opinions and share them.
And what we're seeing is the loss of advice.
So traditionally, and this goes way back to the
founding of the Foreign Service, the modern Foreign
Service in 1924. But to some extent, it goes
back to President Theodore Roosevelt before he
became president, when he was first head of the
Civil Service Reform Commission in New York State
and then head of the Federal Civil Service Reform
Commission. And that came in the wake of the
assassination of President Garfield by a job
seeker, Charles Guiteau. And the idea was we
want nonpartisan, nonpolitical people to give
their best advice to the elected leaders. And
the elected leaders get to decide as long as
their decisions are legal. But they need advice.
And having some expert advice is not a bad thing.
And that concept is now being essentially eliminated.
There's no question from what I know of what
the atmosphere is within the State Department.
And of course, it's not unique to the State Department.
People are afraid to share dissenting opinions.
No one is going to say to political bosses, I
don't think that's the right answer. Can I tell
you why? Which is how it's supposed to work.
And instead, they don't dare do that. So, you
know, we've seen this with this catastrophic
war with Iran. You know, no one, with a few exceptions,
it appears a few people, including General Kane
at one point, tried to tell President Trump that
this was not a good idea. That is not welcome.
And the idea of having a nonpartisan, apolitical
set of career federal employees who do their
best to serve whatever administration is in office,
you know, that's been essentially destroyed.
I just heard today that, you know, not only has
AFSA, the American Foreign Services Association,
along with the other federal unions, been illegally
derecognized and kicked out of. all contact and
engagement with the State Department. But we're
hearing from people that new employees coming
into the Foreign Service are afraid to join AFSA
because they're afraid of retaliation. And once
upon a time, I would have thought that was impossible,
but it's not. It's real. So I think what we're
risking is sliding back into the spoil system
of the 1880s before we clean things up. And it
was, you know, interestingly, mostly the Republican
Party that cleaned things up because the Democratic
Party was more corrupt, certainly Tammany Hall
in New York and Boston and all the other places.
That was Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans.
And, you know, the idea now that if you're working
for the federal government, you have to be a
loyalist or whoever is in office is very frightening
and is already hurting us enormously. The last
thing I'll say on this is also the loss of expertise.
So when we see these negotiations with Iran,
we don't have a single career diplomat. We don't
have a single career CIA analyst. We don't have
anybody who knows Iran, anybody who knows how
to do diplomatic negotiations. And what a surprise,
it's failing. We don't even have the Secretary
of State. You have Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.
Right. I think the Secretary of State is a smart
guy. I don't particularly endorse him, but I
think he knows that this is a loser and he's
staying away as much as he possibly can. But
really, and, you know, it has to be said, it's
a delicate issue, but our two negotiators with
Iran are Zionist Bibi Netanyahu supporters who
are opposed to a two -state solution with the
Palestinians. Would I pick them to be our negotiators
with Iran? Of course not. I would pick experienced
people like Bill Burns, who did negotiations
in the Obama and Biden administrations. But never
mind, nobody's asking me. I just feel very strongly
that the idea that we don't need expertise and
knowledge and experience is leading us into really
dangerous territory. And I know that you have
made that point. across multiple administrations
obviously it is not as it hasn't been as stark
and as all -encompassing i would say as it is
right now um but this isn't a new idea um as
a former you know civil servant myself you know
i dealt with that tension firsthand and you know
as a i think about all the you know current and
former you know government lawyers for example
who you know are now afraid of even, to your
point, offering advice because, you know, anything
that might be perceived as opposition, you know,
is essentially equated with treason. And, you
know, you are not long for the job that you're
in at that point. And, you know, the fact you
mentioned the Benjamin Franklin Fellowship, and
I think that has to be said, what people need
to know is that the State Department had about
30 employee organizations, some of which were
more than 50 years old. The first one was the
African American Employees Association going
back to 1972. And they were all banned and de
-recognized by the State Department, along with
three labor unions, including AFSA. And yet the
Benjamin Franklin Fellowship, which appears to
be a Heritage Foundation project and appears
to be funded by Heritage and their donors. has
been given essentially official recognition and
endorsement. The Deputy Secretary of State, Chris
Landau, is a proud member and has repeatedly
encouraged employees to join. And, you know,
I somewhat controversially said it's kind of
like the Communist Party in the Soviet Union.
If you were a civil servant in a Soviet government
ministry, you were not required to join the Communist
Party. Most Soviet citizens were not members
of the Communist Party. Only a few million were.
But if you wanted to get ahead, if you wanted
to get promoted, if you aspired to high office,
you damn well had to join or at least apply to
join the Communist Party. And that's what we're
dealing with now. This administration claims
to be for meritocracy. It claims that DEIA and
wokeism were the opposite of meritocracy. But
in reality, this is the opposite of meritocracy.
They have basically said political loyalty. is
the most important and really the only factor
in assignments and promotions. And it's not just
loyalty to a party, it's loyalty to a person.
A person who, suffice it to say, is rather controversial.
And we just saw today the most extreme version
of that with the announcement that the State
Department will be putting President Trump's
angry vision. visage portrait in the front of
all U .S. passports. There's not another country
in the world that has its leader on its passports,
not the monarchies, not Vladimir Putin's Russia.
It's not done, but that's what's happening. And
so, you know, the message is you have to be,
they use the term fidelity. But basically, you
have to be loyal to the absolute monarch or you're
not considered, I guess, loyal is the word. And
absolute loyalty, in fact. And we've never had
this. But more importantly, this can't last.
And the thing that I'm most concerned about is
when the next president, whoever she or he is,
takes office, they will not have. a strong foreign
service. They will not have senior expertise
because most of our senior people have left or
have been driven out. The same thing is true
in the intelligence community. They're going
to be handicapped. If they want to know how to
interpret Iranian leadership, the people who
understand that are mostly going to be gone,
will have left. Even the FBI unit in the... you
know days leading up to the war that was that
had iran you know expertise in you know in iran
were all fired or reassigned um so actually your
comments lead me to a very natural uh segue because
you mentioned you know the next president uh
regardless of who you know she or he is and you
know how they will be hamstrung um i wonder about
you know sort of the the next generation of uh
career diplomats and how they navigate a world
where, you know, our allies have every reason,
you know, not to trust, not to trust, excuse
me, what this country says when, you know, even
if we come out of this, you know, in 2028 or
2029. Why would anyone, you know, really put
stock in the promises that the United States
makes? Because because we're just another election
away from getting back to where we are right
now. What advice would you give to address that
problem? Well, I mean, that's a very important
question. I remember when President Biden won
the election in 2020 and basically said America
is back. And I was talking to a lot of my diplomatic
friends in Europe, in Australia and Japan. And
their question was, for how long? Right. Unfortunately,
in 2026, they won't even ask that question anymore.
Even if we have a new president in 2029, who
is internationalist and Atlanticist and, you
know. As you said, they will not have confidence
or trust that this will last. And it's gone.
So that's number one. The second piece, I think,
is that we need diplomats and we need diplomacy.
And when I joined the Foreign Service in 1985,
we effectively ran the world with occasional
interference from the Soviet Union. And I would
put it that way. We don't run the world anymore.
And increasingly, I mean, it was already happening,
but Donald Trump has accelerated it in his second
term enormously. That said, we are going to be
the richest, most powerful country in the world
for the rest of our lives. And that country needs
diplomacy and it needs diplomats. And right now
that is being de -emphasized to great, at great
cost. You know, our country is losing on so many
fronts. So what I say to people, I do talk to
a lot of people who are interested in joining
the Foreign Service. And I say, please follow
up, follow through on that, because we need you.
And having lost so much. I feel very strongly
about it. And if someone says, well, I don't
think I could work for Donald Trump, I say, well,
if you apply now, you won't work for Donald Trump
because it takes that long to get in. Now, if
you want to know who the next president is, I
can't help you. I have no idea. But it won't
be Donald Trump. And I believe, and I have no
grounds for disbelief, I just believe it, things
will be better. I really do believe we're at
a bottom. Can I prove that? Of course not. But
I do believe that. And so, you know, I say to
people, you know, no, it won't be like when I
joined the, you know, the world was our, we created
all the systems, we created the United Nations,
we created NATO, we created the IMF, we created
the World Bank. I mean, all of this was ours.
We created the WTO really. But we're still kind
of important. And we need good people. You know,
I hope people won't shy away from that. It's
been a terrible ride for career public servants
because the Trump administration hates them and
distrust them. But I really do believe that will
pass. And I really feel it's very important.
We're going to have to replace the people who've
left and who've been pushed out. We can't recreate
everything we had a year and a half ago. There
will be no replacement for USAID. I'm quite sure
of it. It certainly can't be revived. We will
not spend as much on international development
as we did a year and a half ago, partly because
once you lose it, the politics are just not conducive
to recreating it. But we've got to get back to
playing a constructive and engaged role in the
world, and I think we will. and we've got to
reinvent a little bit you know we've lost so
much that we can't get back but somehow we've
got to think uh what what we can do better and
uh more effectively than what we were doing i
mean the last point i would make is no one i
mean i spent almost four decades in this institution
and no one thought it was perfect no one not
even close and no one was satisfied I think you
could say that about any government agency. Absolutely.
When I was president of AFSA for four years,
I wrote a column every month in our magazine,
the Foreign Service Journal. Most of my columns
were about what needs to be fixed, what is not
working. So no one's defending the status quo,
but this kind of destruction is horrific. And
we've just got to figure out how we sort of get
our way back to some kind of positive. forward
-looking future. Well, so to that end, that leads
me to, you know, what I think people are struggling
with right now, which is sort of this push and
pull between, you know, as you mentioned, you
know, internationalism, respect for global institutions
like NATO and the UN and the IMF and the list
goes on, you know, in contrast to America, you
know, quote -unquote America first, depending
on how, you know, you individually define that.
and then obviously what's happening right now
in iran you know the previous incursion into
venezuela um you know threats about cuba uh as
you think about you know what our role in the
world is you know after all of this how how should
your average uh citizen make sense of all of
this in the current moment with an eye towards
again 29 and beyond So I think, you know, the
average American grew up with a sense of our
country as a values based society. Not to say
that we've always acted in that way. And, you
know, yes, we've done things that are very, I
would say, lamentable and regrettable. But, you
know, our country is based on an idea. The Constitution
is based on an idea. And losing that. Which is
what's happening now in our foreign policy. I
mean, I confess, I was always somewhat critical
of human rights and democracy advocacy, partly
because it was at times very hypocritical and
it was at times very, I would say, based on double
standards. countries that we needed. We looked
the other way if they were horrible dictatorships.
And countries that we didn't need, we criticized
them and put sanctions on them. But I never really
thought we could get away completely from having
values. So what we've seen in Venezuela, what
we've seen in Iran, what we're looking at seeing
in Cuba is a policy based on the absolute absence
of values. I mean, Trump has basically said if
the Cuban communist regime is willing to make
an the settlement with us, we're fine with them
staying in power. And I hope that all the Cuban
Americans in Miami and elsewhere who voted for
him are okay with that. I know they're not, but
they voted for him. And what we're seeing in
Iran, I mean, I think we're going to see a deal
with the Iranian regime staying in power and
probably being more secure in power than they
were six months ago when the whole country was
up in arms demonstrating. And Venezuela, I mean,
it's very explicit. It's the same regime. They
just agreed to kowtow to us and do what we say
so they don't get killed. But there's no democracy
in Venezuela and doesn't look like there's going
to be any. You know, again, countries have interests.
I have been critical of sometimes our emphasis
on some of this, which I thought. But, you know,
at the end of the day, and then Ukraine is the
most important example. You know, Ukraine is
about. key principles and values of national
sovereignty, democracy, you know, that the bullies
don't win. And I will say I'm optimistic Ukraine
will survive and overcome this, but this administration
is not making it easy. Unfortunately, I think
the priorities have become, in contrast to values,
it's self -interest and self -aggrandizement.
And if you said to me, well, countries have interests
and all that, well, of course they do. And I'm
not going to argue that they shouldn't. But what
we're seeing now, which is different, is personal
interests. We haven't really had that before.
We've never had a president who was focused on
personal aggrandizement and his family's financial
interests and all that. We really haven't. And
it's shameful. But here we are. Well, so speaking
of self -interest, you know, one of the things
that, you know, as we come to a close, you know,
and I'm so grateful for how gracious you've been
with your time today. What would you tell our
listeners? You know, what should they be doing
right now? You know, what is the call to action?
You know, it's easy to get kind of overwhelmed
by just the sheer enormity of everything that's
happening and sort of feeling, you know, almost
helpless. Like, you know, what do I do? You know,
what would you tell that person? Well, I think,
you know, based on my experience, there's so
many things that, you know, we as Americans need
to be focused on. We tend to focus on our own.
neighborhood and our own personal interests,
our engagement with the world is the basis of
our prosperity and security. And I would say
it's so important for people to not only recognize
that, but to do something about it. And of course,
a lot of Americans have. They've hosted exchange
students. They've supported organizations working
overseas on food security and on public health,
all sorts of things. But it's really crazy in
2026 to find ourselves back in the 1920s with
the notion that Fortress America can survive
on its own and we don't need the rest of the
world. And actually the rest of the world is
our enemy. And we're seeing the results of that
economically. And in terms of security, I mean,
anyone who thinks that losing NATO is good for
our security is extremely deluded. And, you know,
our allies are saying to us, not just our European
allies in NATO, but our allies in Asia and elsewhere
are saying to us, you know, you need us and we
need you. And that's the whole point. It's a
mutual and the idea that we can go it alone.
I just read this insane article today about our
F -35 fighters, which increasingly are coming
off the assembly line without the high -tech
radars that they need to deal with threats. And
that's because there's some precious metals and
rare earths that they need to make these radars,
and 99 % of them come from China. So how is that
good? It's not. I think actually. Oh, I'm sorry.
Go ahead. I was just going to say, I think that.
What we're seeing is this, you know, hyper individualism,
you know, as a nation and then, you know, honestly,
as individuals. And despite the fact and I tell
me if you agree, despite the fact that. you know,
national security is used as a justification
for almost everything. You know, I would argue
that we're profoundly less safe today than we
were on, you know, January 19th, 2025. I think
that's absolutely true. And I also think that
despite the theoretical benefits of the internet,
you know, back, I'm old enough and you are too
to remember when all the arguments were made
that the internet is going to increase global
knowledge and understanding and everybody will
have access to all the information in the world,
people are much less informed and much less involved
than they were before the internet. And that's
a subject for scholarly study that I'm not going
to try to get into. But the key point is people,
you know, for one thing, Americans don't understand
this collectively. that our citizens are worse
off than citizens of most of the other industrialized
democracies. If you want to compare us to Burkina
Faso, it's certainly better to be an American.
I got that. No one's going to argue that. But
compared to all of our allies and all the other
democracies in the world, and there's about 50
of them, Americans have it worse in so many respects,
from health care to child care to workplace rights.
I mean, you could go down the list. Life is harder
here. And, you know, that's something that I
say, and this is why international engagement
is so important. But, you know, we saw this with
the insanity about taking over Greenland, where,
you know, the average Greenlander said, you know
what? It's so much better here than in the United
States. Why would we change that? And of course,
you know, I'm afraid certainly on the MAGA side,
people don't understand that. And they're sold
a bill of goods that isn't true. I think that's
right. That's right. And I think actually it
is a great reminder to all of our listeners and
to everyone out there that it doesn't have to
be that way. you don't have to be helpless um
there's always agency um and there's always you
know it's a simplification but the amount of
money we have spent on attacking iran in the
past few months uh would pay for health insurance
for every american for the next few years it's
that much But no one, I mean, people are making
that case. That's the kind of thing you hear
from Bernie Sanders and some other people. But
the point is, it's actually true. And yet the
message is we can't afford health care for everybody.
We can't afford long -term care for everybody.
We can't afford good schools for everybody. So
that is part of this. International engagement
leads to understanding some of these things.
And I personally think it's one of the reasons
there are people who are opposed to international
engagement because they don't want to hear it.
And, you know, I think there's still this American
exceptionalism argument that we're the best thing
since sliced bread. And, of course, you know,
I'm extremely patriotic and deeply grateful for.
what this country has meant to my family for
more than a century. And I believe in this country,
but I also recognize it's not what we claim to
be. And I think, you know, that's a turning point
that we're approaching that we're really going
to have to confront. Absolutely. And that knowledge
and that honesty is power and helps us fight
against that authoritarian slide. And so, Eric,
again, thank you for being so, so gracious with
your time. Really appreciate you joining us.
And so if you wouldn't mind, can you tell the
audience a little bit about, you know, you've
mentioned the democracy resilience program or
democratic resilience program. I know you mentioned
lots of other part time jobs that you've got.
I don't know if there's anything you want to
highlight or just let folks know where they can
find you, you know, in the great interwebs. Certainly.
So I'm on the board as well of the American Academy
of Diplomacy and working with the Academy on
working with Congress, with congressional staffers
and members on issues related to supporting the
Foreign Service. And that's a strong commitment.
And I'm hopeful we'll have a new Congress that
will be more receptive to positive things. I'm
also on the board of DACOR, which is originally
the diplomatic and consular officers retired
group, but it's now really essentially the organization
of foreign affairs professionals throughout our
country and a very important space for discussion
and other things. I'm doing a couple of things
working with high school students who are interested
in foreign affairs. I'm also on the board of
YIVO, the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research
in New York, which is partly based on my family
heritage and my commitment to that. And then
I'm also working on several projects looking
ahead to what 2029 looks like and how we can
think about reinvention and how we can think
about what comes next if we have the opportunity.
So that's something I'm very happy to be part
of. And then I do a lot of speaking engagements
around the country and I do a lot of interviews.
And, you know, basically the message I try to
convey is the importance of America's engagement
with the world and the importance of career diplomats
and career expertise. And I know you're also
pretty active on LinkedIn and other places. So,
you know, people can definitely, you know, find
you there. And so to our audience, if you like
what you heard on today's show, please subscribe
to the Steady State Sentinel wherever you get
your podcasts and give us a five -star review
on Google. Those subscriptions and five -star
reviews help us get this important content to
the widest audience possible. If you'd like to
hear more from our guests about the implications
of the administration's foreign policy and the
dismantling of the career foreign service, also
check out my interview with our chairman of the
Board of the Steady State, Tom O 'Brien. And
as always, the Steady State Sentinel is for you,
our listeners, and we want to hear from you.
Please join us for our next episode so you can
stay engaged and stay informed. Remember, protecting
our democracy is not a spectator sport. This
is Peter Mina for the SteadyState Sentinel, still
standing watch. Thank you for listening to the
SteadyState Sentinel podcast. Don't miss out
on more insights and exposes from America's premier
global security experts. Also, subscribe to our
Substack at substack .com slash at SteadyState1
and follow our social media and join us right
here next week for another exciting edition.
The Steady State is a nonprofit organization
working to sustain our democracy and national
security. Join us and support our mission by
visiting www .thesteadysate .org.