Although the president and Congress often set the agenda for foreign policy making, the day-to-day conduct and administration of U.S. foreign policy are vested in the massive federal bureaucracy. The U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy is roughly divided between four complexes: diplomatic, security, economic affairs, and intelligence. Each of these issue areas contains multiple actors who, despite having similar goal, are constantly vying for access to resources for their organization. Overall, the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy is highly fragmented and decentralized, despite Congress’s efforts to centralize the foreign policy decision making process. This conflict is yet another paradox of U.S. foreign policy.

Studying the foreign policy bureaucracy is critical to understanding the foreign policy process. The structures and agencies in the federal system outlast members of Congress and presidents, who have limited time, resources, and capacities that prevent them from engaging in day-to-day and even long-term foreign policy issues. Bureaucrats are vested with the resources, budgets, and expertise to implement policies over the long term, and provide much-needed “continuity and constancy” to foreign policymaking. Each of the four complexes, however, faces challenges and constraints on its mission. Many of these obstacles arise from cultural and institutional factors within the agency and the bureaucracy.

The diplomatic complex encompasses the interactions between U.S. agencies and foreign governments, international organizations, and private citizens. These interactions can occur through official channels, or through more informal means aimed directly at the foreign citizenry, often referred to as public diplomacy. The main U.S. institution in the diplomatic complex is the Department of State—the oldest executive agency in the U.S. government. The State Department, headed by the secretary of state, is vested with advising and guiding the president on diplomatic affairs as well as providing citizens with information and access to foreign countries. These missions are often hampered by foreign and domestic disdain for diplomacy, as well as the presidential and congressional priorities of security and intelligence budgets.

The security complex receives most of the attention and resources of the U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy. The National Security Council and the Department of Defense are the two agencies with the most foreign policy resources and responsibilities. The national security adviser has played an increasingly active role in planning foreign policy strategies and dealing with security issues. The NSC is often critiqued because of its ad hoc and secretive role. The Defense Department continues to be the largest organization in both funding and employees; it is extremely fragmented and decentralized as it includes the army, navy, air force, and dozens of agencies. The newly formed Department of Homeland Security now faces problems similar to those of the DoD. While these agencies receive more funding and resources than agencies in the other three foreign policy complexes, recent trends in executive-bureaucratic relations have led to a centralization of security-related foreign policy decisions in the White House.

The intelligence complex, most frequently characterized by the Central Intelligence Agency plays an important but often not well-understood role in the foreign policy process.While the CIA is operated independently, the other fourteen agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community operate within other departments, such as the Defense Department, or within branches of the armed services. Each agency has its own agenda and budget, and the agencies have not tended to share their intelligence; this problem was exemplified by the September 11 attacks. The economic complex generally involves the broad mission of coordinating trade and currency markets. The National Economic Council and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are the main agencies that advise the president and coordinate economic matters with other policy actors. Each of these complexes faces similar difficulties, which include coordination of resources, agendas, and interests.

Today the greatest challenge is effectively balancing forces that simultaneously militate in favor of greater centralization and decentralization in foreign policy decision making. Specifically, the White House tends to centralize power and decision making while the far-flung bureaucracy in the United States tends to spread powers amongst many different actors. These tensions between centralization and fragmentation reflect the paradox of world power wielded by the United States today. The sources of these tensions—unprecedented global clout, a dynamic civil society, and a political system designed to hinder foreign policy making—are likely to become even more pronounced in the years to come.