This chapter is about the people who deal with other countries. It says the president should put his own staff in charge fast. It wants ambassadors replaced. It says treaties the Senate never approved should not be followed. It also sets out plans for China, Iran, the Middle East and the Arctic.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 173 in the PDF
What the document says
“No one in a leadership position on the morning of January”
The full sentence reads that no one in a leadership position on the morning of January 20 should hold that position at the end of the day. The chapter adds that this does not imply foreign service and civil service officials should be excluded from key roles, and that the main suggestion is to have as many political appointees as possible in place at the start.
What the document actually says
“No one in a leadership position on the morning of January”
That sentence, in plain words
No one should be leading here at night who was leading that morning.
What this is about
This is about the day a new president starts. The book says every leader there should be replaced. It should happen within that one day.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14410, signed June 3, 2026, places listed policy-influencing career positions in Schedule Policy/Career, where employees are excepted from adverse action procedures and can be removed for poor performance or misconduct. It changes how such officials may be removed rather than replacing anyone, names no State Department position in its readable text, and arrives nearly 17 months after the first day the chapter is writing about. The appendix listing the covered positions is printed as images in the Federal Register, so which posts it reaches cannot be read from the indexed text. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: PresidentHow: internal managementp. 173 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should assert leadership over, and guidance to, the State Department by placing political appointees in positions that do not require Senate confirmation”
The chapter names senior advisors, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretaries and Deputy Assistant Secretaries, and says that given the department's size the number of political appointees should also be increased. It asks that non-confirmed senior appointees be chosen by the transition team or the personnel office and be in place on the first day.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should assert leadership over, and guidance to, the State Department by placing political appointees in positions that do not require Senate confirmation”
That sentence, in plain words
Put political staff into the jobs that do not need a Senate vote.
What this is about
Some top jobs need a Senate vote. Many do not. The book says to fill those with the president's own people. It says that gives him more control.
The order creates Schedule G in the excepted service for noncareer positions of a policy-making or policy-advocating character that are normally subject to change at a presidential transition, and provides that civil service rules do not apply to removals from them. That builds a route for placing appointees in posts that require no Senate vote, which is what the chapter asks for. The fit breaks down in that the order names no State Department position: its only agency-specific instruction is to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It does not increase the number of appointees at the State Department, does not name senior advisors or deputy assistant secretaries, and says nothing about having them in place on the first day.
In plain English
The order sets up Schedule G for policy jobs that need no Senate vote. Staff in them can be fired more easily. That opens a path for the hires the chapter wants. But the order names no State Department job, and its one agency step goes to veterans care.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 174 in the PDF
What the document says
“It should both accept the resignations of all political ambassadors and quickly review and reassess all career ambassadors.”
The chapter notes that previous Administrations accepted only political ambassadors' resignations and let career ambassadors stay on, sometimes for years. It says the review should begin well before the first day, and separately that ambassadors in countries where policy would substantially change, or who have shown hostility to the incoming Administration, should be recalled immediately.
What the document actually says
“It should both accept the resignations of all political ambassadors and quickly review and reassess all career ambassadors.”
That sentence, in plain words
Let all the political ambassadors go. Then look hard at the career ones too.
What this is about
Ambassadors speak for the country abroad. Some are political picks. Others are career staff. The book says the political ones should all go. It says the career ones should be reviewed.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The Office of Personnel Management rule lets agencies move policy-influencing career positions into Schedule Policy/Career, making them removable without adverse action procedures. It is a government-wide civil service rule and does not touch ambassadors: nothing in it accepts the resignations of political ambassadors or requires a review of career ones. No document indexed here mentions ambassadors. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 174 in the PDF
What the document says
“Ambassadors in countries where U.S. policy or posture would substantially change under the new Administration, as well as any who have evinced hostility toward the incoming Administration or its agenda, should be recalled immediately.”
The chapter asks that new ambassadors who support the President's agenda be put in place, drawn from political appointees, foreign service officers and civil service personnel with no predetermined proportion, and that political ambassadors with strong personal relationships with the President be prioritized for key posts.
What the document actually says
“Ambassadors in countries where U.S. policy or posture would substantially change under the new Administration, as well as any who have evinced hostility toward the incoming Administration or its agenda, should be recalled immediately.”
That sentence, in plain words
Call back any ambassador who seems against the new team. Call back those in countries where policy will change.
What this is about
An ambassador may not agree with a new president. The book says those should be called home. So should any in a country where the plan is changing.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. No candidate concerns ambassadors. The nearest, Executive Order 14317, creates a new excepted service schedule for noncareer policy appointees and says nothing about chiefs of mission, recalls or the staffing of embassies. No executive order, memorandum, proclamation, notice or determination indexed here mentions ambassadors at all. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 174 in the PDF
What the document says
“the Secretary of State should order an immediate freeze on all efforts to implement unratified treaties and international agreements”
The chapter asks for a freeze on implementing unratified treaties and agreements, on resource allocation, foreign assistance disbursements, contracts and payments, and hiring, pending a review led by political appointees. It says the quality of the review matters more than its speed.
What the document actually says
“the Secretary of State should order an immediate freeze on all efforts to implement unratified treaties and international agreements”
That sentence, in plain words
Stop all work on treaties the Senate has not approved.
What this is about
The Senate must approve a treaty for it to count. Some are followed before that happens. The book says all such work should stop at once.
Executive Order 14169 orders an immediate pause on new obligations and disbursements of foreign development assistance pending reviews conducted under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, with the Office of Management and Budget enforcing the pause through its apportionment authority. That answers the freeze on foreign assistance disbursements, contracts and payments pending review that the chapter asks for in the same passage. It does not reach the sentence quoted. Nothing in the order concerns unratified treaties or international agreements, and the pause runs across every agency with development assistance programs rather than being a freeze ordered inside the State Department.
In plain English
The order pauses new aid spending while each program is reviewed under State Department rules. That answers the freeze the book asks for in the same passage. But it does not touch the quoted line. Nothing here concerns treaties or deals that were never approved. The pause covers every agency, not just the State Department.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 175 in the PDF
What the document says
“order an immediate stand-down on enforcement of any treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate”
The chapter says the department not only approves but enforces treaties the Senate has not ratified, and that the practice must be reviewed and most likely jettisoned. It asks that agreements which are really treaty commitments be identified with the Attorney General and White House Counsel, and that compliance be suspended pending transmittal to the Senate.
What the document actually says
“order an immediate stand-down on enforcement of any treaties that have not been ratified by the Senate”
That sentence, in plain words
Stop enforcing any treaty the Senate has not approved. Do it now.
What this is about
A treaty is only binding once the Senate says yes. The book says some are being enforced anyway. It says that should stop right away.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Acting on the review ordered by Executive Order 14199, the memorandum directs agencies to withdraw the United States from listed organizations and bodies. Leaving bodies the United States has joined is a different act from suspending enforcement of agreements the Senate never ratified. The memorandum does not sort agreements by whether the Senate gave advice and consent, orders no identification of treaty commitments with the Attorney General and White House Counsel, and suspends compliance with nothing pending transmittal to the Senate. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 175 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should also move to withdraw from treaties that have been under Senate consideration for 20 years or more”
The chapter reasons that such treaties are unlikely to be ratified. It adds that where ratification of an old treaty still serves the national interest, the letter of transmittal should be updated for current circumstances rather than withdrawn.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should also move to withdraw from treaties that have been under Senate consideration for 20 years or more”
That sentence, in plain words
Some treaties have sat in the Senate for 20 years. The next team should pull out of those.
What this is about
A treaty can wait years for a Senate vote. Some have waited over twenty. The book says those will never pass. It says to withdraw from them.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The memorandum withdraws the United States from organizations and conventions it belongs to, selected for being contrary to United States interests. The chapter asks for something different: withdrawing from the Senate's consideration treaties that have sat there for 20 years or more, a test of how long a treaty has waited rather than of its merits. The memorandum does not address pending treaties or letters of transmittal. Executive Order 14155 likewise withdraws from a body the United States belongs to, the World Health Organization. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “must”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 175 in the PDF
What the document says
“The Secretary of State must revoke most outstanding C-175 authorities that have been granted to other agencies during previous Administrations”
C-175 authority lets an agency other than the State Department negotiate an international agreement. The chapter says most such grants should be revoked, closely coordinated with the White House, but that Homeland Security should keep or regain its authority for negotiating bilateral and multilateral security agreements.
What the document actually says
“The Secretary of State must revoke most outstanding C-175 authorities that have been granted to other agencies during previous Administrations”
That sentence, in plain words
Other agencies were given power to make deals abroad. The Secretary must take most of it back.
What this is about
Only the State Department normally makes deals abroad. Other agencies were given that power too. The book says most of it should be taken back.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed here comes close. No candidate concerns Circular 175 authority or the power of agencies other than the State Department to negotiate international agreements. The two nearest, the foreign assistance award term rules of January 27, 2026, attach conditions to State Department grants and cooperative agreements; they govern the terms of money, not who may negotiate for the United States. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 177 in the PDF
What the document says
“Visa sanctions under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act”
Section 243(d) allows the suspension of visa issuance to countries that will not take back their nationals who have been ordered removed from the United States. The chapter says it should be quickly and fully enforced, that sanctions should cover immigrant visas, non-immigrant visas or all visas, and that they should stay until the country accepts all its removal-pending nationals and commits to future acceptance.
What the document actually says
“Visa sanctions under section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act”
That sentence, in plain words
One law lets America stop giving visas to a country. Use it fully.
What this is about
Some countries will not take back their own people. The law lets America stop giving them visas. The book says to use that power fully.
Section 13 directs the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to cooperate and effectively implement the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the maximum extent permitted by law, to ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include those states' acceptance of nationals subject to removal, and to eliminate documentary barriers, dilatory tactics and other restrictions preventing prompt repatriation, with a state's failure or delay in verifying identity counted in applying the sanction. The rest of the passage is not carried out: the order names no country, does not say whether a sanction should cover immigrant visas, non-immigrant visas or all visas, sets no condition that a sanction remain in force until the country accepts every national pending removal and commits to future acceptance, and qualifies the direction with the phrases as appropriate and to the maximum extent permitted by law.
In plain English
The order tells two cabinet heads to use visa bans on states that will not take back their people. They must also press those states in talks and clear away delays. But no country is named. The order does not say which visas are hit. Nor does it say how long a ban lasts, and the wording is softened by the words as appropriate.
Section 3(c) adds a new subsection (e) to section 243 of the Immigration and Nationality Act giving a state attorney general or other authorized state officer standing to sue the Secretary of State in federal district court for injunctive relief over a violation of the requirement in subsection (d) to discontinue granting visas, with the court instructed to expedite the case and financial harm above $100 counted as harm. The sanction the chapter wants enforced becomes enforceable by states rather than resting on the Secretary's own decision. The Act leaves the sanction itself unchanged: it requires no country to be sanctioned, sets no scope for the visa categories covered, and fixes no duration.
In plain English
The law lets a state sue the government over visas. Before, it was up to one official whether to cut them off. The rule itself does not change. No country must be named, and no time limit is set.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 177 in the PDF
What the document says
“The United States should strictly enforce the doctrine of reciprocity when issuing visas to all foreign nationals.”
The chapter says the United States has given wide access to nationals of countries that do not respond in kind, including countries hostile to American interests, and that mandatory reciprocity would convey that no country has an unfettered right of access. It asks that the department be able to react to other countries' visa changes in real time.
What the document actually says
“The United States should strictly enforce the doctrine of reciprocity when issuing visas to all foreign nationals.”
That sentence, in plain words
Give a country's people the same visa terms it gives ours. No more than that.
What this is about
Countries decide who may visit them. Some make it hard for Americans. The book says America should match them. It would treat them the same way.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Executive Order 14385 uses the language of reciprocity, but for exchanging felony conviction records with Visa Waiver Program countries and other trusted allies, not for the terms on which visas are issued. The visa bond pilot conditions visitor visas on overstay rates and vetting rather than on how a country treats American travelers, and the Reciprocal Trade and Tariffs memorandum applies reciprocity to tariffs. Nothing indexed here applies a reciprocity test to visa issuance. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “must”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 178 in the PDF
What the document says
“Reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, safe third-country agreements”
The chapter says these and other measures addressing non-Mexican asylum applicants at the southern border must be day one priorities, describing them as key initiatives in effect at the end of the Trump Administration.
What the document actually says
“Reimplementation of the Remain in Mexico policy, safe third-country agreements”
That sentence, in plain words
Bring back the rule that made people wait in Mexico. Bring back the deals with other countries too.
What this is about
People who ask for asylum used to wait in Mexico. Their case was heard while they waited. That rule was dropped. The book says to bring it back on day one.
Section 6 of the order, signed January 20, 2025, directs the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to resume the Migrant Protection Protocols in all sectors along the southern border and to return aliens described in section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to the territory they came from. Section 8 directs the Secretary of State to pursue international agreements, naming section 208(a)(2)(A), the provision under which safe third country agreements are made. The fit breaks down in that resumption is ordered as soon as practicable rather than done on the day, the order concludes no safe third country agreement itself, and returning people to Mexico depends on Mexico accepting them, which the order does not address. None of the five candidates offered for this proposal touched the subject.
In plain English
The order tells three cabinet heads to bring back the plan that sends asylum seekers back to Mexico while they wait. It also tells the State head to seek deals with safe third countries. But the plan is to resume as soon as workable, not on day one. No such deal is made here, and Mexico must agree to take people, which the order does not address.
Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, State Department, NSCHow: internal managementp. 179 in the PDF
What the document says
“The U.S. government needs an Article X for China”
Article X refers to the anonymous 1947 article that set out the doctrine of containment toward the Soviet Union. The chapter says the State Department and National Security Council should draft an equivalent for China as a presidential mandate, and that it should be a deeply philosophical look at the challenge. It says a strategy of competing where necessary while cooperating where possible, including on climate change, has demonstrably failed, and that the issue is with the Communist dictatorship rather than the Chinese people.
What the document actually says
“The U.S. government needs an Article X for China”
That sentence, in plain words
America needs one big plan for China. It should be like the one written about the Soviet Union.
What this is about
In 1947 an article set out how to handle the Soviet Union. It shaped policy for years. The book says China needs the same kind of plan now.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The nearest candidate is the notice of November 5, 2025 continuing the national emergency declared by Executive Order 13959 over securities investments that finance certain companies of the People's Republic of China. It keeps an existing investment restriction in force and states no doctrine. Nothing indexed here is a founding strategy document on China of the kind the chapter asks the State Department and the National Security Council to write, and a document of that kind would not normally be published in the Federal Register. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “must”Who acts: PresidentHow: not specifiedp. 182 in the PDF
What the document says
“continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid”
This chapter does not resolve its own position on Ukraine. It sets out one view favoring continued involvement including military and economic aid and the presence of NATO and American troops if necessary, a second holding that European nations should aid Ukraine's defense while the United States ends its involvement and presses for a negotiated settlement, and a third that asks first what is in the interest of the American people. The quoted words come from that third position. The chapter states that the common ground is that presidential leadership in 2025 must chart the course.
What the document actually says
“continued U.S. involvement must be fully paid for; limited to military aid”
That sentence, in plain words
If America stays involved, it must be paid for. It should be weapons only.
What this is about
The book does not settle what to do about Ukraine. It lays out three views. One says keep helping. One says stop. One says only help if it is paid for and limited.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. The chapter sets out three conservative positions on Ukraine and adopts none, so there is no proposal for an action to answer. The candidates include two annual notices continuing the national emergency with respect to Ukraine first declared in 2014 and an order modifying duties on the Russian Federation. Recording any of them here would attribute to the book a position it deliberately leaves open. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.
The document says “should”Who acts: President, Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 189 in the PDF
What the document says
“The next Administration should embrace the view that NATO must acknowledge that it is, in part, an Arctic alliance.”
The chapter notes that with Finland and Sweden joining, every Arctic nation except Russia will be a NATO member, and says NATO has been slow to see the Arctic as a theatre it must defend. It asks that Arctic shipping lanes remain open to all commercial traffic and free of onerous fees, and says the north star of American Arctic policy should be national sovereignty.
What the document actually says
“The next Administration should embrace the view that NATO must acknowledge that it is, in part, an Arctic alliance.”
That sentence, in plain words
The next team should say NATO is partly an Arctic alliance.
What this is about
The Arctic is the icy sea at the top of the world. Russia has built bases there. The book says NATO should treat it as ground to defend.
Section 18 of Executive Order 14269 directs the Secretary of Defense, with the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Commandant of the Coast Guard, to develop within 90 days a strategy to secure arctic waterways and enable American prosperity in the face of evolving arctic security challenges. It treats the Arctic as a theater needing a defense strategy, which is the neglect the chapter describes, and it is aimed at keeping those waterways usable. NATO has no part in it. The order builds a single national strategy inside a maritime policy order, says nothing about the alliance acknowledging an Arctic role, and does not address commercial access to Arctic shipping lanes or the fees the chapter raises.
In plain English
The order calls for a plan to guard the far north sea lanes. That treats the region as one that needs defense, as the chapter urged. But the plan is national, and the alliance the chapter named has no part in it. Shipping access and fees are not covered.
The document says “should”Who acts: Secretary of StateHow: internal managementp. 185 in the PDF
What the document says
“the next Administration should build on the Trump”
The full passage asks the next Administration to build on the Trump Administration's diplomatic successes by encouraging other Arab states, including Saudi Arabia, to enter the Abraham Accords, and says related policies should include reversing what it calls the Biden Administration's degradation of the partnership with Saudi Arabia. It says relations with Saudi Arabia should be strengthened in a way that curtails Chinese influence.
What the document actually says
“the next Administration should build on the Trump”
That sentence, in plain words
The next team should build on what the Trump team did.
What this is about
The Abraham Accords are deals between Israel and some Arab states. The book wants more countries to join them. It names Saudi Arabia.
Section 6611 adds a section 1015 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to establish an Abraham Accords Office headed by a director, sited within two years in a country the Department of State identifies as having signed the Abraham Accords Declaration, to give technical assistance on regulatory oversight to partners in those countries and help interested parties there deal with the agency, with a report to Congress within three years. It builds on the Accords by attaching a standing federal benefit to having signed them. It does not do what the passage asks: it is addressed only to countries that have already signed, it encourages no further state to join, it names neither Saudi Arabia nor any other prospective party, it says nothing about the partnership with Saudi Arabia or about Chinese influence, and it is a drug regulatory measure carried out by the Food and Drug Administration rather than a diplomatic one.
In plain English
A 2026 spending law sets up an Abraham Accords Office in the drug agency. Within two years it must sit in a country that signed the accords. Its job is to help partners there deal with the agency. But it reaches only states that have signed, urges no new one to join, and is a drug rule step.
Kiron K. Skinner, “Department of State,” in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), pp. 171-200. https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
This page
“Department of State,” Project 2025, chapter 6. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/chapter-6/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Recommendations on staffing and appointments, treaties and international agreements, visa policy and border-related diplomacy, and the regional strategies the chapter sets out.
The chapter's assessment of the department's culture, and much of its regional analysis where it describes a situation rather than asking for a specific change. Its recommendations on Africa, South Asia and Europe are only partly covered.
On Russia and Ukraine this chapter does not take a single position. It sets out three competing conservative views and says only that presidential leadership must chart the course. All three are recorded.
