President Donald Trump promised to reform American diplomacy. Insiders say he’s breaking it instead, to the point where he’s undermining his own global influence.

Eight months into Trump’s second term, more than half of U.S. ambassadorships, an unusually high amount, are vacant. Most top State Department roles are filled on an acting basis, often by people with little relevant experience. Many U.S. diplomats, especially those overseas, are largely cut out of policy talks while struggling to implement administration orders they say are confusing. Many also are too afraid to speak up because they could be fired or lose a promotion under new rules that measure their “fidelity.” They’ve already seen thousands of their colleagues pushed out and many offices dismantled.

POLITICO spoke to a dozen State Department officials, former diplomats and other U.S. officials with insight into the department, granting nearly all anonymity because of concerns they could be fired for speaking publicly.

The overall impact of the changes remains unclear. But many diplomats said they feel both powerless and resigned to the circumstances. There’s a sense that if Trump’s political appointees don’t want diplomats’ advice, then fine — those appointees will have to deal with the legal and logistical fallout of whatever plan they order diplomats to carry out.

“In Trump’s first administration, people would say, ‘This isn’t right — we need to tell the White House.’ There’s none of that this time,” one of the State Department officials said. “Why would I do that? This administration isn’t interested.”

The officials and diplomats interviewed said the Trump administration is reshaping the Foreign Service into a smaller, weaker force in international relations, one whose diplomats are mere implementers instead of originators of policy ideas. This is happening despite Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s stated plans to make his department more central to foreign policymaking.

Tommy Pigott, a department spokesperson, defended the changes Rubio has made, saying the secretary has “reorganized the entire State Department to ensure those on the front lines — the regional bureaus and the embassies — are in a position to impact policies.” He added, however: “What we will not tolerate is people using their positions to actively undermine the duly elected president’s objectives.”

The department continues to function, though with new priorities. Those include a more restrictive approach to immigration; less emphasis on human rights, humanitarian aid and promoting democracy; and more attention to touting U.S. businesses.

U.S. diplomats have mixed feelings about these priorities, though many worry that the administration is alienating U.S. allies with its tactics.

There’s also a pervasive sense of fear at many posts. Much of it revolves around diplomats’ ability to communicate and voice dissent — even on basic policy disagreements.

“Loyalty to decisions has always been a fundamental requirement for America’s foreign service, but if speaking honestly internally is suppressed, the administration will stumble blindly into avoidable dangers,” said Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.

In an August note to its members, the American Foreign Service Association — a union Trump has moved to strip of its bargaining rights — highlighted such concerns bluntly. The note, which NBC News previously reported, said AFSA has been made aware of instances “where Foreign Service officers are being curtailed from their assignments after providing less-than-positive analysis or unwelcome recommendations to leadership.” The note did not detail the incidents.

“We are operating in uncharted territory,” the group wrote, urging members to obtain professional liability insurance and “be mindful that interpersonal interactions, especially with new acquaintances, can be recorded and shared.”

At one embassy, top officials have ordered the rank-and-file to discuss “anything remotely sensitive face-to-face,” one diplomat said. That comes amid chatter by staff that the State Department may have installed keystroke spyware to monitor embassy employees’ electronic communications, the diplomat said. Asked for comment, the State Department denied such spyware is being used.

The department has long had a “dissent channel” in which diplomats could send a memo, usually classified, to the secretary of State, voicing disagreements with policy decisions. It’s unclear how active that channel is now, but several diplomats said they would not feel comfortable using it, even though people who do so are supposed to be legally protected from reprisal.

Rubio’s decision to consider whether a diplomat shows “fidelity” to administration objectives as a factor in promotions is also fueling consternation. Many diplomats stress that their job already requires them to implement the policies of the administration in charge, and that if they don’t feel they can do so in good conscience, they need to resign. But they privately deride the “fidelity” concept as a loyalty test that is meant to scare them in ways that will stifle creative ideas and lead to bad policymaking.

Many of the people interviewed stressed that each diplomat’s situation varies depending on their position, their location and the administration’s priorities. Those in Israel are likely getting more guidance than those in the Pacific islands. Many also acknowledged that the State Department has long been bigfooted on policymaking by other entities, such as the National Security Council and the Defense Department, in administrations past.

But there are new concerns with this administration. Diplomats fear, for example, the impact outside players have on Rubio. Far-right influencer Laura Loomer appeared to have successfully pushed Rubio to suspend issuing visas for Palestinians from Gaza. She has demanded Rubio fire some diplomats who are Muslim.

U.S. diplomats also say communication from department headquarters to posts abroad is far more limited than it should be, especially given the massive changes to U.S. policy on everything from tariffs to democracy promotion.

“There’s a sharp decline in transparency,” a second State Department official said.

This means U.S. diplomats are often surprised by the administration’s decisions and told to implement policies despite having questions about details, logistics and legalities. It can paralyze work on administration priorities, they say, and make it harder for diplomats to confidently talk to their foreign counterparts about a decision’s implications — a key part of their job.

An Aug. 7 Trump executive order laying out new rules on grant-giving, for example, left many State Department officials confused, with different bureaus offering different guidance on how to implement it in their regions, a second U.S. diplomat said.

“People are spending an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out what things mean,” the diplomat said.

The administration’s approach is not entirely surprising.

Rubio, who also serves as acting national security adviser, has significantly cut what was once a complicated policymaking process that took into account the views of many departments. Now, a small group of people — mainly at the White House — talk to the president and come up with policies based on what he wants, then order the rest of the government to implement them. The idea is to reduce leaks to the media, end bureaucratic slow-rolling and achieve major changes that normally would hit roadblocks.

Trump and his top aides also have long harbored suspicion of the State Department in particular, believing it is a liberal stronghold opposed to the president’s agenda. Early in his second term, Trump issued an executive order aimed at reshaping the Foreign Service in ways he said would better reflect his America First priorities.

To implement that order, Rubio and a handful of his deputies have taken an array of steps, from redesigning the entry exam for the Foreign Service to pushing out thousands of staffers, especially those who dealt with topics such as human rights and promoting democracy. Numerous offices have been cut or shrunk.

At the same time, many top roles at the State Department, such as undersecretaries or assistant secretaries, haven’t been filled on a permanent basis. Many major divisions are being run by “senior bureau officials” on an acting basis.

When a political appointee is not available, some low-ranking career diplomats viewed as sympathetic to Trump’s ideas have been placed temporarily into top State Department ranks, even if they lack the typical qualifications for the post, according to many of the officials. This is particularly galling to career diplomats because the Foreign Service is organized like the military, and rising through the ranks isn’t easy. To some in the field, it’s as if generals are now reporting to corporals.

Questions about qualifications are especially rampant in the Middle East bureau, one of the most challenging divisions in which to serve due to ongoing strife and political tension that have long received outsized U.S. attention. Multiple people complained that the senior bureau official — political appointee Mora Namdar — has elevated employees she views as more loyal above more experienced, higher-ranking diplomats.

The Washington Post previously reported on frustrations with Namdar, who did not immediately respond to POLITICO’s request for comment. Pigott, the State Department spokesperson, defended Namdar and the choices made for key roles, saying the department “is elevating personnel who have proven that they have the merit, expertise and experience to best implement President Trump’s agenda and advance our national interests.”

The frustrations come amid rising concerns about the unusually large number of vacant ambassador positions. According to the American Foreign Service Association’s ambassador tracker, 110 of 195 ambassador roles are currently vacant.

Some of this is to due Senate slowness in confirmations, including because of holds placed by Democrats. But the administration also has failed to nominate candidates for more than 60 of the positions, according to AFSA.

Lacking a Senate-confirmed ambassador can undermine America’s ability to communicate its foreign policy abroad.

For one thing, diplomatic protocol in some countries means top leaders are less likely to meet with temporary envoys. Acting ambassadors, who often come from the Foreign Service ranks, also tend to have less access in Washington to the president or even the secretary to seek guidance.

On Thursday evening, lawmakers approved a handful of ambassadorial nominees. A Trump administration official familiar with the situation said the faster ambassadors can reach their posts, the better the State Department’s leaders can communicate with diplomats overseas. The official was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Many who enter the Foreign Service hope to make it their lifelong career, knowing from the start that usually involves rotating positions, and locations, every few years. Now these say they worry about what future roles to apply for, more so if their specialty is a low priority for the Trump team.

There are also worries that the administration will eventually close some consulates and embassies and these diplomats will happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, as some were during a round of layoffs earlier this year.

But some said the one place they did not want to be was Washington, where most staff cuts so far have been concentrated and where the workplace tension is harder to ignore.

“Why put yourself in that situation?” the first diplomat asked.

Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.